Serial No. 43 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Mac App 21/2025. GHULAM MOHD MIR AND ORS.(SENIOR CITIZEN). ……...Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Muhatashim, Advocate. Versus ARJUN AND ORS. (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED). .……Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 30.03.2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, Budgam in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of ₹2,19,52,000/-. The said claim petition came to be dismissed as time-barred on account of a delay of approximately six months. 2. It is submitted that the Presiding Officer, MACT, Budgam, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon a judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala, which has subsequently been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been stayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha and Others, wherein it has been, inter alia, observed that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the Tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss claim petitions on the ground of limitation as prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The same is taken on record. 4. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. Having considered the submissions made and in view of the aforesaid order passed by Supreme Court, it is evident that the claim petition of the petitioner has been dismissed as time-barred in reliance upon a judgment, the operation whereof presently stands interdicted. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 cannot be sustained. It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant para of order (supra) as under: It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the Tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under Sub-Section (3) or Section 16(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, Budgam is set aside. The matter is remitted to the said authority for fresh consideration in light of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by Supreme Court. 7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected applications, if any. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Srinagar 30.03.2026 Shaista-PS