1 2025:CGHC:49711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 225 of 2025 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Showroom, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Shatrughan Chanap S/o Mannulal Caste Halba Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Mahaveer Para, Farasiya, Post Farasiya, P.S. And Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, C.G. 2 - Khilesh Markam S/o Chaitram Markam Aged About 24 Years R/o Amgaon, Nayapara (Belar), P.S. Sihava, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, C.G. 3 - Mithlesh Kumar Kashyap S/o Pannalal Kashyap Aged About 40 Years R/o Budhhapara, Depopara Road, Village And Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate For Respondents : None (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The applicant / defendant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in case bearing No. MACT/95/2025 whereby the application filed by the respondents for condonation of delay in filing claim application was allowed. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 before the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.), seeking compensation on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident which occurred on 26.06.2017. As per the pleadings, the respondent No. 1 was travelling from Dhamtari to Nagri as a passenger on a bus bearing Registration No. CG-04-D-6157. While the bus was en route and passing through Village Kukrel, it suddenly overturned on the road, causing serious injuries to several passengers, including respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 claimed that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. It is significant to note that the respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition seeking compensation on 02.01.2025, i.e., more than six years after the date of the accident. This inordinate delay rendered the claim ex facie barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which, prior to the amendment, prescribed a limitation period of six months from the date of the accident, extendable by a further period of six months, provided sufficient cause for delay was established. Hence, the filing of the claim petition nearly six and a half years after the date of the accident was clearly beyond the statutorily prescribed limitation period. The applicant accordingly filed a detailed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the claim on account of limitation. Despite the categorical objection taken by the applicant and the apparent bar of limitation as per the statute, the learned Tribunal proceeded to allow the application filed by respondent for condonation of delay in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without assigning cogent or sufficient reasons, and without examining the bona fides of the delay. The Tribunal failed to appreciate 3 that the delay of over six years had not been satisfactorily explained, and that permitting such stale claims would defeat the very object of the law and open the floodgates for frivolous litigation. The impugned order condoning the delay has been passed in complete disregard of the statutory mandate under Section 166(3) and is, therefore, ex facie unsustainable in law. Aggrieved by the impugned order and the arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Tribunal in entertaining a time-barred claim, the present revision petition is being preferred before this Court, seeking to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has committed material irregularities and acted with patent illegality of grave magnitude in passing the impugned order dated 26.04.2025. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside/quashed by this Court in the interest of justice. The Tribunal has grossly erred in assuming that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that such an assumption is completely without legal basis, as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self- contained code and does not incorporate any provision permitting extension of time for filing claim applications beyond the statutory period, particularly after the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. It is submitted that the Tribunal exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. Nowhere under the Motor Vehicles Act is the Claims Tribunal empowered to condone delay in the filing of a claim under Section 166. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that it is a statutory body constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and is bound to 4 function within the four corners of the statute. The Tribunal further erred in ignoring that the claim in the present case is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.04.2022. As per the amended provision, an application under Section 166 must be filed within 6 months from the date of the accident, and no claim application shall be entertained after this period. The use of the phrase "shall not be entertained" in the Amendment Act makes it abundantly clear that there is no scope for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period. The claim in the instant case was filed nearly 2 years and 8 months after 01.04.2022, and hence, is clearly barred by limitation. Moreover, the learned Tribunal also failed to consider the binding and persuasive precedents on the issue. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Santhi & Ors. Vs. Suresh & Anr., C.R.P. (P.D) No. 4066/2022, and the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Biju Mathew Vs. Suraj Mon. K. Shaji, 2022 (0) Supreme (Ker) 854, have categorically held that in cases where the accident occurred prior to 01.04.2022, claim applications must be filed within six months from the date the Amendment Act came into force. Both Courts have concluded that such applications, if filed beyond this period, cannot be entertained in light of the amended provision. The learned Tribunal, however, failed to appreciate or apply these decisions appropriately to the facts of the case at hand. Furthermore, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind. The Tribunal ignored the statutory mandate and judicial precedents, and its findings are devoid of legal reasoning, making the order unsustainable in law. Lastly, it is pertinent to bring to the notice of this Court that the legal issue involved in the instant matter is currently sub 5 judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Lombard Vs. Ayiti & Others, wherein the question of limitation and the effect of the Amendment Act of 2019 is under active consideration. Therefore, till the said issue is conclusively decided by the Apex Court, no interpretation contrary to the plain language of the Amendment Act should be adopted. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and dismiss the application filed by respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the documents appended along with the revision. 5. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the applicant/defendant challenging the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in MACT No. 95/2025. The impugned order allowed the application filed by respondent for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Upon perusal of the revision petition, it appears that the accident occurred on 26.06.2017, at a time when the amendment to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act had not yet come into effect. The said amendment was incorporated only on 01.04.2022. The amended Section 166(3) reads as follows : “166(3). No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.” 6 7. The core issue involved is the applicability and retrospective operation of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.04.2022. The accident in question occurred on 26.06.2017 when the respondent No. 1, a passenger on a bus, sustained grievous injuries due to the vehicle overturning allegedly due to rash and negligent driving. The claim petition for compensation was filed on 02.01.2025, i.e., more than six years after the date of the accident. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on 01.04.2022. The amended Section 166(3) states that no claim application shall be entertained after six months from the date of the accident, explicitly removing the discretionary power of the Tribunal to condone delay beyond this period. The language used, namely “shall not be entertained,” clearly signals a statutory bar against filing delayed claims. 8. It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that unless a statute explicitly provides otherwise, amendments operate prospectively and not retrospectively. In the present case, the accident occurred on 26.06.2017, well before the amendment came into force on 01.04.2022. The legal position governing limitation must be the one prevailing at the time of the accident, that is, the pre-amended provision which allowed condonation of delay up to six months beyond the initial six-month period. To hold otherwise and apply the amended provision retrospectively would be to deny a party the benefit of the law in force at the time of the accident. Such retrospective application would result in grave injustice and offend the principle of fairness. Application of Judicial Precedents 9. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on decisions in the matter 7 of Santhi & Ors. (Supra) Biju Mathew (Supra) where the Courts held that for accidents occurring prior to 01.04.2022, the limitation period as per the pre-amended law applies. In these cases, the Courts clarified that the six-month period for filing claims as per the amended Act cannot be applied retrospectively to bar claims arising before the enforcement date of amendment. These precedents reinforce the settled principle that the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect. 10. It is true that the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained code and that the powers of Tribunal must be derived from the statute. However, prior to the amendment, the Tribunal did possess jurisdiction to condone delay for a limited period. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in allowing condonation of delay in this matter is consistent with the law applicable on the date of the accident. The Tribunal did not err in granting condonation of delay as it was required to consider the relevant provisions and the facts. Although the delay is inordinate, the Tribunal is empowered to examine the explanation for the delay and decide accordingly. Further, the applicant contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This argument, however, does not affect the principle that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay within the parameters set by the Motor Vehicles Act as it existed prior to amendment. 11. The applicant brought to notice the pending case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard Vs. Ayiti & Others concerning the interpretation of the Amendment Act. The Court recognizes the significance of this pending adjudication but cannot override settled 8 principles of non-retrospectivity based on an unreported judgment. Till such time as the Supreme Court pronounces, the Court is bound by legislative mandate and judicial precedent. 12. Having considered the facts and law, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition. 13. The amendment came into force on 01.04.2022 and cannot be applied retrospectively to bar claims arising out of accidents prior to that date, including the present accident dated 26.06.2017. The Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning delay under the law as it stood at the time of the accident. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction. 14. The revision petition filed by the applicant/defendant is hereby dismissed. The order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, allowing the application filed by respondent for condonation of delay, stands confirmed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna