1 2025:CGHC:9784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 101 of 2024 • I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered Office At I C I C I Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai M H, Thro Legal Manager- Deepak Soni S/o Late M.L. Soni, I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 5th Floor, Sky Park, In Front Of Bhatiya Hospital, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. (Applicant / Insurer) --- Applicant. versus 1 - Swapna Modi D/o Santosh Kumar Modi Aged About 30 Years Pali Road, Ward 8, At. And P S And Tehsil Dipka, District Korba, C.G. (Respondent / Claimant). 2 - Bharat Singh Chauhan S/o Lal Singh Chauhan Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. And Tehsil Hardibazaar, P S Kusmunda, District Korba, C.G. 3 - Banwari Lal S/o Nema Ram, Govind Ram Bhavnani Hemu Colony, At And P S And Tehsil Pali, District Korba, C.G. (Respondent / Driver – Owner). --- Respondent(s) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.02.28 12:33:15 +0530 2 CR No. 138 of 2024 • Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Infront Of Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Post Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)..(Non- Applicant). ---Applicant. Versus 1 - Uma W/o Late Mukesh Kumar Paikra Aged About 22 Years. 2 - Jai Singh S/o Late Ujiyar Singh Aged About 71 Years. 3 - Tulkunwar W/o Jai Singh Aged About 58 Years. Respondents No.1 to 3 are R/o village-Chatauna, P.S. & Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. (Applicants.) 4 - Vikram Singh Tamrakar S/o Late - Baidhanath Tamrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Basti, Kota, P.S. And Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.).. (Non-Applicant) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in CR No.101/2024 : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Applicant in CR No.138/2024 Shri Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 in CR No.101 of 2024 Shri Shubham Dewangan appears on behalf of Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 27/02/2025 3 1. Since similar issue is involved in both the revisions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. Civil Revision No.101 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Claims Case No.27/2023 by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Korba (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it. 3. Civil Revision No.138 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 22.06.2024 passed in MACT No.1523/2023 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the revisioner/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it. 4. Both learned counsel for the applicants submit that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter by allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not maintainable. They submit that as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a limitation of six months for preferring a Claim Petition and there is no provision for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing the said Claim Petition. Hence, the Tribunal should not have condoned the delay. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending adjudication in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal 4 (C) No(s).9152/2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the High Court of Kerala has also taken a view in the matter of Akshay Raj vs. Ministry of Law and Legislative Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50 that the matter is condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 and the said matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 5. In the matter of Malrawan vs. Praveen Travels reported in 2023 SCC Online Madras 5467, the Madras High Court has taken a view that in view of the provisions contained under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, once it is incumbent upon the Police to forward the First Accident Report (FAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to the Claims Tribunal, the said report can also be treated to be a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, mere pendency of matters before the Supreme Court concerning applicability of the Limitation Act would not be a sufficient ground to interfere in the matter. 6. In the matter of Akshay Raj (supra), the Kerala High Court has also considered the effect of Annexure XIII to Central Motor Vehicles Rules as also the aspect of statutory liability to submit the DAR. 7. Since the issue concerning delay in filing the Claim Petition under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory requirement of submission of DAR before the Claims Tribunal by the Police has been raised before the Supreme Court, which was decided by the Kerala High Court in Akshay Raj (supra), the present revisions are disposed of 5 directing the Claims Tribunal concerned not to pass final award in Claim Petitions pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. The Tribunals are further directed to reconsider the application and pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue, which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash