1 2025:CGHC:58257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 277 of 2025 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Chetan Kumar Deshlehre S/o Shri Hemchand Deshlehre Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Village Sodh, Post Office Sodh, Thana And Tehsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sohail Kumar Deshlehre S/o Chetan Kumar Deshlehre Aged About 11 Years Res No. 2 Is Minor Represented Through Its Natural Guardian Father Chetan Kumar Deshlehre, R/o Ward No. 4, Village Sodh, Post Office Sodh, Thana And Tehsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Purab Deshlehre S/o Chetan Kumar Deshlehre Aged About 8 Years Res No. 2 Is Minor Represented Through Its Natural Guardian Father Chetan Kumar Deshlehre, R/o Ward No. 4, Village Sodh, Post Office Sodh, Thana And Tehsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Triloki Sahu S/o Thansingh Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 30 Mahavir Chowk, Urla, Bmy Charoda, Thana Kumhari, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kamlesh Kumar Goyal S/o Lakhanlal Goyal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 30, Harijan Para, Urla, Bmy Charoda, Thana Kumhari, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents : None (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 1/12/2025 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 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 17.1.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (C.G.) in case bearing No. MACT/50/2024 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed. 2. 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 17.1.2025. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside/quashed by this Court in the interest of justice. It is submitted that rejection application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is completely without legal basis, as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self- contained code. 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 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 3 filed nearly 2 years and 9 months from the date of accident, 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 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 17.1.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and dismiss the application filed by 4 respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the documents appended along with the revision. 4. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the applicant/defendant challenging the order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (C.G.) in MACT No. 50/2024. The impugned order rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Upon perusal of the revision petition, it appears that the accident occurred on 16.6.2021, 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. 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 16.6.2021. The claim petition for compensation was filed on 2.3.2024, i.e., more than 2 years 9 months 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 5 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. 7. 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 16.6.2021, 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 8. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on decisions in the matter 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. 9. 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 6 significance of this pending adjudication but cannot override settled 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. 10. Having considered the facts and law, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition. 11. 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 16.6.2021. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction. 12. The revision petition filed by the applicant/defendant is hereby dismissed. The order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, rejecting the application filed by respondent, stands confirmed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat