1 2025:CGHC:47858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 240 of 2025 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8, R I I C O I, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rakesh Singh S/o Balveer Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Nevsa, P.S. Gourela Tahsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2 - Narayan Rathore S/o Pyarelal Rathore Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Nevsa, P.S. Gourela Tahsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh (Def. No. 1). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record in Claim Case No.08/23 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for its kind perusal 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside quash the impugned order dated 07.03.25 passed in Claim Case No.08/23 passed by 2nd A.M.A.C.T. Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) being illegal and erroneous and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC be granted/allowed. 3. That, cost of the petition be allowed. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the plaintiff/claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,50,000/- on various grounds, in respect of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11th July 2022. It was submitted in the claim petition that on the said date, the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle along 3 with his uncle at Village Gorakhpur, at about 10:00 AM. While they were proceeding peacefully, a Honda Shine motorcycle, driven by one Dalbeer Singh, approached from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the reckless driving of the offending vehicle, it dashed into the motorcycle on which the claimant was traveling, resulting in a severe accident. The collision caused grievous injuries to the claimant, including serious trauma to his head and nose. Additionally, he suffered the loss of several teeth as a consequence of the accident. The injuries sustained were so severe that the claimant has been medically assessed to be 60% permanently disabled. Following the accident, the claimant was initially admitted to 10 Noble Hospital in Bilaspur for immediate medical treatment. However, due to the extent and seriousness of his injuries, he was later transferred to Nagpur where he continued to receive medical care and treatment for a considerable period of time. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 07.03.25 is manifestly contrary to law, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the clear mandate of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, specifically Section 166(3), which unequivocally provides that no application for compensation shall 4 be entertained unless it is filed within six months from the date of the accident, a provision which has been entirely overlooked in the present matter. He further submits that the Tribunal neglected to consider the statutory requirement under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates the submission of the Accident Information Report (AIR) by the police within three months for the purpose of claim settlement a condition not complied with here. He further submits that the accident occurred on 11.07.22, and there was an unjustifiable delay of one day in filing the claim petition, which ought not to have been condoned. The learned counsel emphasized that Section 166 does not confer any discretion upon the Claims Tribunal to condone delay beyond the stipulated six-month period, and thus the impugned order stands in direct violation of statutory provisions. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shreelakshmi T. & Ors., where the Supreme Court, by order dated 17.05.23, stayed the operation of a similar impugned order, underscoring the pendency of this crucial issue before the apex court. He further submits that the Tribunal’s failure to appreciate the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for rejection of a suit that is barred by law, further compounds the error, as the claim petition was clearly 5 barred under Section 166(3). It was contended that allowing the impugned order to stand would cause the applicant irreparable loss and a grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order, being per se illegal and contrary to settled legal principles, deserves to be set aside and quashed in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. After careful consideration of the submissions and the material on record, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition filed by the applicant. The impugned order dated 07.03.25 passed by the Claims Tribunal has been duly reasoned and is in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judicial precedents. The delay of one day in filing the claim petition is trivial and does not warrant rejection, especially when the claimant suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability. Further, the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction within the ambit of law, and no manifest error or illegality has been demonstrated to justify interference. The contentions regarding non-compliance of statutory provisions and applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are misplaced in the facts of this case. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Raghu Jat Judge