1 2025:CGHC:49305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 256 of 2025 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 Riicoi, 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 (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Taran Singh Thakur S/o Late Rameshwar Singh Thakur Aged About 53 Years Near Jabrapara Nala, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Yogendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Baldau Ram R/o Village Tharakpur, Post Kotri, Tahsil Laalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (25.09.2025) 1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant assailing the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.978 of 2024, whereby the Tribunal entertained the claim ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 petition filed by the respondent despite a delay beyond the statutory period under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal committed a legal error in presuming that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is argued that the Motor Vehicles Act does not contain any express provision empowering the Tribunal to condone delay in filing a claim under Section 166. Hence, the exercise of such jurisdiction by the Tribunal is without authority and contrary to law. Counsel further submits that, post-amendment, the statutory scheme under Section 166 clearly mandates that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is filed within six months from the date of the accident. In the present case, the accident occurred on 02.12.2023, whereas the claim petition was filed on 12.06.2024, i.e., after a delay of more than six months. He further submits that the Summer Vacation is ensuing despite that the application/appeal was filed after opening of the Court. Accordingly, it is contended that the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim on the ground of limitation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 4. On due consideration, it is noted that the accident in question took place on 09.02.2018. The amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which introduced a fixed limitation period of six months and came into effect on 01.04.2022, is prospective in nature. Therefore, 3 it cannot be retrospectively applied to claims arising out of accidents that occurred prior to the said amendment. As the present accident occurred prior to the amendment, the pre-amendment legal position would govern the claim, under which no strict limitation period was prescribed, and delay could be condoned based on justifiable cause. 5. In light of the above, the Tribunal has not committed any legal infirmity in entertaining the claim petition. The submission of the applicant lacks merit and does not warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena