1 2025:CGHC:41006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 796 of 2025  Branch Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance Company, Address, 4th, Floor, Pujari Chamber, Dhamtari Road, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vickey Tandi S/o Shri Shyam Tandi Aged About 38 Years R/o Uttakal Basti, Kukurbeda Thana Saraswati Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dukhmochan Jha Kapileshwar Jha Aged About 50 Years R/o Mig 52, Ring Road No.02, Tatibandh, Thana Amanaka, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 08.2025 1. The petitioner/Insurance company has filed this petition to quash the registration of the case and further proceedings under taken by the learned claims tribunal in claim case No. 210/2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 12.09.2023. The claim case was filed by respondent No. 1 on 19.04.2024. He would further submit SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.19 10:17:39 +0530 2 that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved by the claimant along with the claim case. He would also submit that an objection was raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the claim case according to the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the claim case was filed after the expiry of six months. He would contend that the learned tribunal held that the issue with regard to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act under the provisions of Section 166(3) of the MV Act is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus declined to decide the objection till the decision of the case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would further contend that the claim case was filed after the expiry of six months; therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have decided the objection raised by the petitioner. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Gandhi at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. Respondent No. 1 met with an accident on 12.09.2023 and filed a claim case on 19.04.2024; thus, there was a delay of approximately one month in filing the claim case. Respondent No. 1 in the claim case has categorically stated that he sustained serious injuries in the accident, and he remained hospitalized for a considerable period. 5. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved by the claimant, but it has not been decided by the learned tribunal, and the issue is still open. In the cases cited by Mr. Gandhi, applications moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were allowed by the learned tribunal; therefore, a direction was issued to the learned claims tribunal not to pass the final award till the issue with regard to the limitation is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But in the present case, the application is still 3 pending consideration, and further, the issue with regard to the limitation is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant