1 2025:CGHC:582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1196 of 2024  Cholamandalam M.S. Gereral Insurance Company Limited Through Simran Tower Second Floor In Front Of Lic Building Pandari District Raipur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jatin Jurri S/o Shri Jiwan Jurri Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 322, Athwani Gali Tikrapara Ward No. 21, Dhamtari Kotwali Station, District Dhamatari Chhattisgarh 2. Jitendra Kumar Sen S/o Kamal Singh Sen Aged About 30 Years R/o Kachandur P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh 3. Narendra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Balaram Chandrakar Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Machandur P.S. Utai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06 .01.2025 1. The petitioner/Insurance Company has challenged the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by learned 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1(claimant) filed an application claiming therein compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the injury sustained in a road accident. 2 The learned Claims tribunal issued notices to the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the vehicle. The Insurance company appeared before the learned tribunal and an application for rejection of the claim was moved on the ground that the claim case was not filed within a period of six months of the accident, therefore, the claim case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance company would argue that the date of the accident was 24.11.2022, whereas the claim case was filed on 20.06.2023, after the expiry of 6 months. She further submitted that as the claim case was not filed within a period of 6 months; therefore, the claim case was not maintainable, and the learned tribunal committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the Insurance company. 4. I have heard counsels appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall not be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. 6. In the present case, along with claim case an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and same was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2024, thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which has been rejected vide order dated 12.06.2024. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 27.03.2024, whereby, delay was condoned. In the instant petition, the petitioner had only assailed rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is 3 made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).Sd Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant