1 2025:CGHC:10054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 216 of 2024 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near R.K. Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- (Non Applicant No. 2). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Gajendra Poyam S/o Sakru Poyam, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Dubeumargaon, Manjhipara, Thana Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- (Claimant/plaintiff) 2 - Sanjay Kumar Khutia S/o Kashinath, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward Bhairamdev, Mahadevghat, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- (Applicant No. 1) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.03.01 13:27:42 +0530 2 28/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in the present Revision is to the order dated 28.9.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.234/2023, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC stating that the claim petition is barred by limitation, has been dismissed. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the said issue is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023. In the said petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the Insurance Company. He would further submit that earlier, the High Court of Kerala has also taken a view that the delay is condonable by an order passed in the case of Akshay Raj Vs. Ministry of Law and Legislative Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50. However, the said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 and the Supreme Court has entertained the said petition, which is pending consideration. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the concerned Tribunal may be directed to consider the objection raised by the Insurance Company afresh after adjudication of the aforesaid issue by the Apex Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondent would submit that as the accident occurred prior to the commencement of the Amendment 3 Act, which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2022, the provisions of the Amendment Act would not be applicable. Hence, learned counsel prays to dismiss the revision. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, since the issue pertaining to condonation of delay is subjudice before the Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned Tribunal to consider the objection raised by the Insurance Company afresh after adjudication of the said issue by the Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly. 6. It is further directed that the concerned Tribunal shall not pass the final award in the claim petition till the subject issue is decided conclusively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Revision is disposed of. 8. In view of the above, the interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna