1 2025:CGHC:60140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 322 of 2025 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Ltd Through- Branch Manager, (Wrongly Mentioned As United General Insurance Co.Ltd In The Cause Title Page Of The Impugned Award) Address- Tara Complex G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Company Of The Allege Motorcycle Kawasaki Ninja No. Cg-07-Cf-5026) ... Applicant versus 1 - Meegada Satyanarayan S/o M.S. Ramarao Aged About 52 Years Resident H- Pocket, 24/b, P, 1489, Maroda Sector Police Station Newai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) Applicant 2 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Banwari Lal Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o Klc-98/f, Sector- 11, Khursipar Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg, (Driver Of The Offending Motorcycle Kawasaki Ninja No. Cg-07 Cf-5026) 3 - Happy Agarwal S/o Manoj Agarwal Aged About 24 Years R/o Plot- No.1555, Road No.36, Vivekanand Colony Shanti Nagar, Ward No.11, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of The Accused Motorcycle Kawasaki Ninja No. Cg-07- Cf-5026) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. The applicant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 544 of 2023. 2. Facts of the case, as per the pleadings, are that the claimant/respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended by Act 32 of 2019) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 in relation to a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on 14.05.2022 at about 19:30 hours at Sector-10, near SBI ATM, Bhilai. It was alleged that on the said date and time, respondent No. 2, while driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG07CF5026 in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly dashed against another motorcycle bearing No. CG07/AR/0601 driven by the claimant’s nephew, Raghukiran, resulting in severe injuries to him and causing substantial damage to the claimant’s insured motorcycle. 3. In respect of the said accident, a criminal case was registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar under Crime No. 247/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC against respondent No. 2. Although notices were duly served on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, they neither appeared before the Tribunal nor filed their written statements, leading to their being proceeded ex parte. The appellant- insurance company, however, contested the claim by filing its written statement, alleging that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the claimant’s motorcycle, raising an objection of limitation on the ground that the petition was filed beyond the statutory period of six months, and further contending that respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions, thereby seeking complete exoneration from liability. 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the Claims 3 Tribunal passed an award dated 21.07.2025 granting compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the claimant and fastening liability upon the appellant-insurance company with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 19.12.2023. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned Award is contrary to the facts, evidence, and the settled legal position, and that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and thus liable to be set aside. It is urged that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident in question occurred after the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chapter XI, came into force with effect from 01.04.2022, and that sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act expressly mandates that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. It is submitted that the statutory language of Section 166(3) is clear, mandatory, and leaves no scope for condonation of delay, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred claim or to consider any application seeking condonation of delay. The counsel further relies upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India v. Chanchal Nag, 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 5276, wherein a pari materia provision using the expression “no application shall 4 be entertained” was held to be an express bar on the power to condone delay, reiterating that a Tribunal, being a creature of statute, cannot invoke the Limitation Act unless such power is specifically conferred. It is contended that the Motor Vehicles Act being a special enactment, the statutory bar under Section 166(3) must prevail, and the limitation period cannot be extended by applying general principles of the Limitation Act. The counsel further submits that the issue regarding applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to claims filed beyond six months under the amended Section 166(3) is presently pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 166/2024), thereby reinforcing the seriousness of the statutory bar. In view of the above legal position, it is argued that the learned Claims Tribunal committed grave error in entertaining and allowing a claim petition that was ex facie barred by limitation, and the same is not maintainable in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned Award fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company be set aside, and the appellant be exempted from any liability, or in the alternative, the claim filed by respondent No.1 be dismissed in its entirety. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and upon perusal of the record of the Tribunal, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5 7. The scope of interference in a civil revision is extremely limited and is confined to cases of jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity apparent on the face of the record. In the present matter, the Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards compensation for the damage caused to the claimant’s motorcycle, fastening liability upon the insurer. The findings so recorded are based on the evidence available on record and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality. 8. This Court further observes that the amount involved in the present case is meagre, and even otherwise, the grievance raised by the applicant pertains essentially to factual appreciation and interpretation of the statutory bar under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such questions, though argued at length, do not warrant interference in a revisional proceeding, particularly when the Tribunal’s view cannot be said to be either perverse or wholly unsustainable. The existence of a pending challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India regarding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act also does not furnish a ground for revisional interference, as no jurisdictional infirmity in the order of the Tribunal has been demonstrated. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and considering the trivial quantum of compensation involved, the present civil revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is 6 made clear that this order shall not affect or prejudice any other petition filed by the Insurance Company in respect of any other award or proceedings pending before this Court or any other competent forum, and all such cases shall be decided independently on their own merits. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna