1 2025:CGHC:49567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1594 of 2024 Krishna Chandra Dubey S/o Raghubir Prasad Aged About 59 Years Caste Bramhan, Resident Of Village And Post Soni Colony, Kansabel, P.S. And Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Pitamber Ram S/o Of Shubha Yadav Aged About 48 Years Caste Mahkul, Resident Of Village And Post Tatkela, Tahsil And P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Vehicla Driver). 2 - Mohd Shamim S/o Abdul Rashid Aged About 60 Years Caste Muslim, Resident Of Village Bagicha, Manjhidarha Post Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambedkar Chowk, Ambika Transport Complex, Banaras Road, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh Pin 497001 (Insurer). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Ms. Akanccha Vishwakarma, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 06/10/2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, whereby the claim case filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of limitation as same was filed with delay of 26 months and 22 days from the date of accident. 2. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant met with an accident on 26.11.2021 when he was hit by the offending bus bearing registration number CG-14-G-0220. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries and remained hospitalized for a considerable period. He further submits that the claimant was later examined by Medical Board, which assessed his permanent disability to the extent of 40%. It is contended that the claim case was filed on 16.02.2024, and the learned Tribunal dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by limitation under the newly inserted sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes a limitation of six months for filing claim case. 3. Learned counsel further contends that the amended provision of Section 166(3) came into effect from 01.04.2022, whereas the accident had taken place on 26.11.2021, prior to the amendment, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while applying the amended provision retrospectively to an accident that occurred before 3 its enforcement; thus, he prays that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellant. 5. Mr. Gulati, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the claim case was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 26 months, and as per the amended provision of Section 166(3), the learned Tribunal rightly held it to be barred by limitation. He supports the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. Ms. Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the submission made by Mr. Gulati. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the accident took place on 26.11.2021, i.e., prior to the insertion of sub-section (3) to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force from 01.04.2022. The said amendment cannot be given retrospective effect so as to defeat a claim arising from an accident that took place before its commencement. The learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application filed by the claimant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as there was, in fact, no need for filing such an application. The claimant’s right to file a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act remained unaffected by the subsequent amendment. 4 9. Considering the above discussed facts, this Court is of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error of law in dismissing the claim case on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the claim case on merits in accordance with law. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 12.11.2025. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim