1 2025:CGHC:57895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 304 of 2025 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, E-8 Riico, 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 - Abhishek Nanda S/o Rajendra Nanda Aged About 31 Years R/o Vrindawan Colony, Masjid Road, Santoshi Ward Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Kumar Rai S/o Jagannath Rai Aged About 22 Years R/o Khair Pakkiya (Asha), P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj (Bihar) Pincode- 841420 Present Address- Deshmesh Road Lines, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Same Address As That Of Vehicle Owner Sukhdev, Driver 3 - Sukhdev Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Danteshwari Ward, Behind Bastar Diesels, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Owner Of Truck) 4 - Fauz Mohommad S/o Peer Mohommad R/o House No. 612, Shukla Gali, Ambedkar Ward No. 29, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) (Owner Of Innova Car) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 5 - Cholamandalam M/s Company Limited Official Address- Ward No. 25, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Second Floor, Simran Towers, Pandri Road, Behind L.I.C. Building, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Innova Car) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur C. G. In Claim Case No.310 of 2024. 2. Facts of the case :- The claimants filed a petition before the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 31,40,000/- for injuries sustained by Abhishek Nanda in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.03.2019. It was alleged that while traveling from Jagdalpur with friends at around 2:45 a.m. near N.H. 30, approximately 1 km before Jagtara, the claimant’s vehicle collided head-on with Truck No. CG-17SS-8872, which was dangerously parked on the road without functioning parking lights or reflectors, causing severe injuries to the claimant; the incident was reported to P.S. Gurur, Balod (C.G.), resulting in FIR Crime No. 60/2019, and the truck 3 was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. The respondent, who was the truck owner and insurer, filed a written statement denying negligence on their part, contending that the truck was properly parked, attributing the accident to the claimant’s driver’s negligence, asserting contributory negligence, challenging the delay in filing the claim as it was submitted on 12.12.2024 (over six years after the accident), and questioning the validity of the truck’s documents and driving license. Subsequently, the insurer filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking dismissal of the claim as time-barred under Section 166(3) of the Act, which the claimant opposed, arguing that FIR registration prior to six months preserved the claim’s maintainability. The Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 03.09.2025, dismissed the insurer’s application, holding that since the FIR was registered within six months of the accident, the claim petition was maintainable, prompting the applicant to file the present revision challenging the said order. 3. The counsel for the revisioner respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 310/24 is contrary to law, facts, and settled principles of justice, as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that under the amended Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 4 no application for compensation shall be entertained unless filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident; in the present case, the accident occurred on 03.03.2019 while the claim petition was filed on 16.12.2024, resulting in a clear delay and rendering the petition time-barred. The Tribunal also overlooked the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, which mandates dismissal of any suit or claim barred by law. Reliance is placed on similar rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd. v. Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors. (04.05.2023) and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shreelakshmi T & Ors. (17.05.2023), where stay orders were granted in cases of similar nature. If allowed to stand, the impugned order would cause irreparable loss to the revisioner and result in a serious miscarriage of justice; therefore, the revisioner submits that the order is per se illegal and liable to be set aside, and prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record of Claim Case No. 310/24 and quash the impugned order, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and peruse the documents available on record. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the claim petition, it is evident that the accident occurred on 03.03.2019, whereas the amendment to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act came into force on 01.04.2022. Consequently, the amended provision 5 cannot be applied to the present case, as the accident occurred prior to the enforcement of the amendment. Therefore, the ground of limitation raised by the insurance company is untenable, the amended Section 166(3) being prospective in nature and incapable of retrospective application. No relief can be granted by invoking the amended provision in respect of an accident that took place before 01.04.2022. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena