1 2025:CGHC:10683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 106 of 2024 • Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present And Correct Address- Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Malay Heights, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Opp. R.B.I, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus 1 - Gajendra Thakur S/o Shri Lawan Singh Thakur Aged About 17 Years Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Indubai, W/o Shri Lawan Singh, Aged 45 Years, R/o Jaganathpur Sankra, Tehsil - Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prakash Sahni S/o Shri Videshi Sahni Aged About 37 Years R/o 182, Ward No. 05 Mallah Para, Supela Market Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sourabh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu L.I.G. 39 Lochan Nagar, Sourabh Kunda Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Sourabh Sharma with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.05 17:38:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 05/03/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.2/2024-application for condonation of delay in filing instant revision. 2. There is delay of 313 days. 3. On due consideration, I.A. No.2/2024 is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 08.05.2023 and 28.02.2024 passed in Claim Case No.85/2023 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it and rejected the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Revision may be disposed of in terms of earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.102/2024, as the similar issue has been considered in the said case. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter by allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not maintainable. He submits that as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a limitation of six months for preferring a Claim Petition and there is no provision for condonation of 3 delay or extension of time for filing the said Claim Petition. Hence, the Tribunal should not have condoned the delay. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending adjudication in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the High Court of Kerala has also taken a view in the matter of Akshay Raj vs. Ministry of Law and Legislative Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50 that the matter is condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 and the said matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 7. In the matter of Malrawan vs. Praveen Travels reported in 2023 SCC Online Madras 5467, the Madras High Court has taken a view that in view of the provision contained under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, once it is incumbent upon the Police to forward the First Accident Report (FAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to the Claims Tribunal, the said report can also be treated to be a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, mere pendency of matters before the Supreme Court concerning applicability of the Limitation Act would not be a sufÏcient ground to interfere in the matter. 8. In the matter of Akshay Raj (supra), the Kerala High Court has also considered the effect of Annexure XIII to Central Motor Vehicles Rules as also the aspect of statutory liability to submit the DAR. 4 9. Since the issue concerning delay in filing the Claim Petition under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory requirement of submission of DAR before the Claims Tribunal by the Police has been raised before the Supreme Court, which was decided by the Kerala High Court in Akshay Raj (supra), the present Revision is disposed of directing the Claims Tribunal concerned not to pass final award in Claim Petitions pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Supreme Court. 10. The Tribunal is further directed to reconsider the application and pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue, which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash