1 2025:CGHC:9787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 107 of 2024 • I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered OfÏce At Icici Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai MH Through- Legal Manager- Deepak Soni S/o Late M.L. Soni, Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., 5th Floor, Sky Park, In Front Of Bhatiya, Hospital, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. Applicant / Insurer --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rekha Modi W/o Santosh Kumar Modi Aged About 50 Years, Pali Road, Ward 8, At. And Ps Dipka Tahsil-Katghora District- Korba C.G. Respondent/ Claimant. 2 - Bharat Singh Chauhan, S/o Lal Singh Chauhan Aged About 23 Years Vill And Tehsil Hardibazaar, Ps Kusmunda, District- Korba C.G. 3 - Banwari Lal, S/o Nema Ram, Govind Ram Bhavnani Hemu Colony, At And Ps And Tehsil Pali District- Korba ( C.G.). Respondents/ Driver- Owner. --- Respondent(s) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.02.28 12:35:29 +0530 2 CR No. 36 of 2024 • Manager, Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd. 9th Floor A And B Wing, Fulcrum Sahar Road, Ashok Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai M.H. (Non- Applicant No. 03) ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Punniram Sahu S/o Pusauram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khadauda Kala, P.O.- Kharhatta, Chowki- Podi, P.S. - Bodla, Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. (Applicant) 2 - Ghanshyam @ Dukalu Sahu S/o Feraru @ Fera Ram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Sonpur, P.S. - Pandatarai, Tahsil- Pandariya, District Kabirdham, C.G. (Non- Applicant No. 01) 3 - Feraru @ Fera Ram Sahu S/o Danwa Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Mohgaon, P.S. - Pandatarai, Tahsil- Pandariya, District Kabirdham, C.G. (Non- Applicant No. 02). --- Respondent(s) CR No. 28 of 2024 • Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Bhartiya State Bank General Insurance Company Limited, Branch OfÏce At 2nd Floor, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Pin 495001,...(Non-Applicant No. 03 / Insurance Company) ---Applicant(s) Versus 3 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Golu S/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur, P.S. Surajpur Tahsil-Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.), (Applicant / Claimant) 2 - Lakshmikant Yadav S/o Bhaiyalal Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, P.S. And P.O. Baikunthpur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), (Non-Applicant No. 01 / Driver) 3 - Lakhanlal Yadav S/o Lt. Sukhiram Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Dumariya P.S. And P.O. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.),.. (Non-Applicant No. 02 / Owner) --- Respondent(s) CR No. 102 of 2024 • Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present And Correct Address Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Malay Heights, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Opp. Rbi, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Ram Kumar S/o Shri Videshiram Aged About 25 Years R/o Jagannathpur Sankra, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.). 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 (C.G.). 3 - Sourabh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu R/o Lig 39 Lochan Nagar, Sourabh Kunda Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) 4 CR No. 99 of 2024 • I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered OfÏce At Icici Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai MH Through- Legal Manager- Deepak Soni S/o Late M.L. Soni, Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sky Park, In Front Of Bhatiya, Hospital, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. Applicant / Insurer. ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Modi S/o Hajaari Mal Agrawal Aged About 55 Years Pali Road, Ward 8, At. And Ps And Tehsil Dipka, District- Korba CG. 2 - Bharat Singh Chauhan, S/o Lal Singh Chauhan, Aged About 23 Years Vill And Tehsil Hardibazaar, Ps Kusmunda, District- Korba C.G. 3 - Banwari Lal, S/o Nema Ram, Govind Ram Bhavnani Hemu Colony, At And Ps And Tehsil Pali District- Korba ( C.G.). Respondents/ Driver- Owner. --- Respondent(s) For Applicants in CR No.107/2024, CR No.99/2024, CR No.146/2024 : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Applicants in CR No.28/2024, CR No.36/2024 : Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Applicant in CR No.102/2024 Shri Sourabh Sharma with Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocates. For Res No. 1 in CR No.28/2024 : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Res No.1 in CR No.107/2024 and CR No.99/2024 Shri Shubham Dewangan appears on behalf of Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 5 27/02/2025 1. Since similar issue is involved in above revisions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. Civil Revision No.107/2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Claims Case No.28/2023 by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Korba (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it. 3. Civil Revision No.36/2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in MACT No.76/2023 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Kabirdham (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it. 4. Civil Revision No.28/2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in MACT No.37/2023 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it. 5. Civil Revision No.102/2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2023 and 28.02.2024 passed in MACT No.86/2023 by the Motor 6 Accident Claims Tribunal, 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, respectively. 6. Civil Revision No.99/2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Claims Case No.29/2023 by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Katghora Korba (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants/Insurance Company submit 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. They submit 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 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 7 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. 8. 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 provisions 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. 9. 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. 10.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 revisions are 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8 11. The Tribunals are 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