1 2025:CGHC:34982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 36 of 2023 Gupta Stone Mines, Through Proprietor Mr. Dwarika Prasad Gupta, S/o. Late Mangai Prasad Gupta, Age 58 Years, R/o. 2nd Floor, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner/insured) ... Appellant versus 1- Mahesh Ram Gond, S/o. Late Banshiram Gond, Aged About 44 Years, R/o. Village - Hardi, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil - Belha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2- Dhani Ram Gond, S/o. Late Bansiram Gond, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Village Hardi, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Belha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Rambhau Yadav, S/o. Ramai Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village - Jhalfa, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 4 - The New India Assurance Company, Through Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.07.24 16:45:18 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 For Respondent No.4. : : : Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (22.07.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The appellant/owner has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur whereby an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- was awarded to the claimants along-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of claim application till its realization and the insurance company has been exonerated and further directed to pay the amount to the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that the claim application is barred by limitation as incident occurred on 05.04.2006 and the claim application was filed on 13.04.2018 and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought 3 not to have entertained the claim application, as there was in ordinate delay of 12 years and the claim has not been filed within a reasonable period. He would further submit that only a live and surviving claim can be considered by the Claims Tribunal and it is not open to all and sundry to approach the Tribunal raising a claim for compensation, as and when choose as has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee 1 . Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned award passed in favour of the claimants. 3. Learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would submit that plea of limitation has not been raised within reasonable time and for the first time the plea of limitation is taken. They would further submit that the appellant/owner did not examine himself before the Claims Tribunal and even the plea of limitation has not been raised at any time, otherwise the claimants would have explained the reasons for delay in filing the claim, therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained on the question of limitation/ delay in filing the claim application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 (2017) 4 SCC 783 4 5. Admittedly, the incident occurred on 05.04.2006 and claim application was filed on 13.04.2018 and thereafter, the owner/appellant was noticed and he had filed written statement before the learned Claims Tribunal, but he did not ever take the plea that the claim was filed with a delay of 12 years and it would not have been entertained as per the law laid down in Purohit & Co. (supra). The appellant/ owner did not examine himself before the Claims Tribunal and he also did not raise the plea of limitation regarding delay in filing the claim application. If the appellant could have taken the plea of limitation in the written statement and led evidence, the claimants would have an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the claim application, which was not done. Even otherwise, the question of delay/ limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and even if it is allowed to be taken at this stage, prejudice would be caused to the claimants and therefore, it would not be appropriate to permit the appellant to take a plea of delay in filing the claim application before this Court for the first time. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge