1 2025:CGHC:37115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 722 of 2025 1 - Dev Malik S/o Late Dilip Malik Aged About 24 Years (Driver Of Vehicle) R/o Ward No. 09, Pendra Dafai Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deep Malik S/o Dilip Malik Aged About 24 Years (Owner Of Vehicle) R/o Ward No. 09, Pendra Dafai Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - Tulsi Prasad Sondhiya S/o Badri Prasad Sondhiya Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Behind F.C.I. Godown, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Radha Bai Sondhiya W/o Tulsi Prasad Sondhiya Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Behind F.C.I. Godown, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 3 - Megma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Registerd Office Development House, 24 Part Street Kolkatta (West Bengal) (Insurer Of Vehicle) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ramsevak Soni and Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocates For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ or writs/ order/ or orders, to quash the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned First Upper Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.02 18:42:32 +0530 2 Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh in M.A.C.T. No. 01/2025 which is arising out of order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned First Upper Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh in M.A.C.T. No. 01/2025, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted. 2. The facts of the present case are that respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants (parents of the deceased) filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.67,50,000/- on account of death of Utkarsh Sondhiya aged about 22 years. Date of accident is 06.10.2022 whereas claim case was filed on 02.12.2024 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. 3. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2025 condoned the delay. Thereafter the petitioners, who are, driver and owner of the vehicle, filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to frame additional issue to the effect that as to whether the claim application is not maintainable as it was preferred after expiry of 06 months in contravention with the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act ? The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.07.2025 rejected said application on the ground that the issue has already been decided vide order dated 16.01.2025. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioners would argue that the claim case filed by the claimants was not maintainable as it was filed after expiry of 06 months in contravention to the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. They would further submit that the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2025 and objection raised by the petitioners was rejected. 3 They would contend that an application was moved under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to frame issue with regard to maintainability of the claim case, but same has been rejected on the ground that the issue has already been decided vide order dated 16.01.2025. They would further contend that the additional issue proposed by the petitioners goes to the root of the case, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the application. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the petitioners and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, there was delay of 02 years and 02 months in filing the claim case by the claimants. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved and it was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2025. Specific objection was raised by the petitioners and it was turned down. The petitioners participated in the further proceedings of the claim case and after 06 months moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to frame an additional issue to the effect that “as to whether the claim application is not maintainable as it was preferred after expiry of 06 months in contravention with the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act ?” The learned Tribunal rejected the said application. 7. The claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed application moved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alongwith application for condonation of delay, but the petitioners have not filed reply to the application moved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC reads as under:- “Order 14 – Settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon 4 Rule 1. Framing of issues.-(1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and [after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence.” 8. According to the provisions of Order 14 sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of CPC, the issue arises when one party makes a factual or legal proposition and other party denies it. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have not filed reply to application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and reply to application for condonation of delay, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the factual proposition set by the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 was denied by the petitioners. Further the issue with regard to limitation was decided by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2025 and that order was not challenged at appropriate stage, rather the petitioners 5 participated in the proceedings and after rejection of application moved under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC have challenged the said order without assigning any reason for such delay. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti