1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 255 of 2025 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager E-8 Epep Ricop Industrial Area Sitapur Jaipur Rajasthan ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - S. Ramesh S/o S. Somraju Aged About 60 Years R/o Kumharpara, Near Champabag Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Orna Camp Kirandul, Village And P.S. Kirandul, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 3 - Ganesh Prasad Sonkar S/o Mithilal Sonkar Aged About 36 Years R/o Main Market Village And P.S. Kirandul, District - Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, 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 29.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), in MACT Case No. 218 of 2024, whereby the Tribunal entertained the claim petition filed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 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 09.02.2018, whereas the claim petition was filed on 05.09.2024, i.e., after a delay of more than six years. Accordingly, it is contended that the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim on the ground of limitation. 3. To strengthen the submission, counsel appearing for the present applicant relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in the case of Shant & Ors. Vs. Suresh & Anr 1 . 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 5. 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 1 C.R.P. (P.D) No.4066 of 2022 decided on 07.12.2022 3 Vehicles Act, which introduced a fixed limitation period of six months and came into effect on 01.04.2022, is prospective in nature. Therefore, 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. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena