IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.95 of 2025 Reserved on:-17.07.2025 Decided on 30th July, 2025 Cholamandlam Insurance Company Ltd. …Petitioners Versus Sh. Joginder Singh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajender Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by learned MACT-III, Shimla, District Shimla, HP on application under Section 1666(3) of the MV Act R/W Order 7 R 11 R/W Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner Company registered as CMP No.314 of 2024 in MAC No.80 of 2023, titled Joginder Singh Vs. Baldev Singh and another may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2 2. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 06.01.2025, in terms whereof, learned Tribunal has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by the petitioner to the effect that the claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that learned Court erred in not appreciating that as the claim was not filed within the statutory period of six months, the same was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that it did not have any jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition filed beyond the period of limitation, more so when it was not accompanied by any application praying for condonation of delay. He submitted that in light of the statutory provisions as were existing at the time when the accident took place, the claimants were bound to have approached the Court within the period of limitation and their act of not approaching the Court within the period of limitation is bad. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned 3 Tribunal is a self-speaking order and the same does not call for any interference because it is a matter of record that after the incident took place on 29.08.2022, an FIR was registered i.e. 72 of 2022 under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station Kotkhai and the accident information report was duly sent by the Police Station to MACT Shimla. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as the documents appended with the petition. 5. In terms of the impugned order, learned Tribunal has disposed of an application filed by respondent No.2 therein for the dismissal of the claim petition under the provisions of Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC. The prayer in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 was that the accident in question had occurred on 12.06.2022, but the claim petition was filed on 11.09.2023 and there was a delay of more than one year and three months and further as Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident the 4 claim was time barred. The response to the said application from the claim was that the accident information report was forwarded by the Police of Police Station Kotkhai to MACT Shimla on 19.09.2022 and the claim petition filed by the claimant in continuation thereof. The claimant received notice from MACT(II), Shimla on 28.08.2023 and after appearance the claimant were allowed to file a separate claim petition. It was denied in the response that the petition was time barred. 6. Learned Tribunal in terms of the impugned order has dismissed the application by returning the following findings:- “There is no dispute about the fact that a challenge to the constitutional validity of section 166 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act is pending in the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Bhagirathi Dash versus Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166 of 2024 as well as the applicability of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to the claims under Motor Vehicles Act in S.L.Ps filed against the judgment of Kerala High Court in Vimala Jose Vs. Aboobacker and others and Akshay Raj v. Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department represented by the Secretary. Though the matter is still pending under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court but there are no directions not to entertain such claim petitions which are filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 166 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. As per the petitioner, the accident took place on 29.08.2022 and regarding same FIR No. 72/2022 was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act 5 with Police Station Kotkhai. After accident the petitioner remained admitted in IGMC Shimla from 30.08.2022 to 07.09.2022 and underwent surgery. Thereafter, he remained under regular follow up and on 25.11.2022 was again admitted in IGMC Shimla upto 27.11.2022. The petitioner is still under regular medication. He was not aware of the fact that the claim is required to be filed within prescribed period of limitation. During investigation, he was informed by the police that Accident Information Report has been sent to MACT Shimla and he will receive notice and thereafter can contest the same or file separate claim petition. The petitioner received notice from MACT Shimla for 22.08.2023, upon which engaged a counsel who advised to file a separate claim petition. Since, he was under bonafide belief that the claim petition shall be filed after receiving the notice from MACT, the claim petition has been filed within time from knowledge of the Accident Information Report. Accordingly, this claim petition has been filed by the petitioner on 10.11.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the petition has been filed within time has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 02.02.2024 in C.R.P. (MD) No. 761 of 2024 Thomas Daniel and Another vs Selvi and Others. A perusal of judgment shows that the Hon'ble Court on taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gohar Mohammad vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32448 of 2018 and the Rules under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 2022 has come to the conclusion that the question of limitation will arise only in the case where no FIR has been registered by the Police and no report has been sent/uploaded. (cases where the police has lodged FIR and the accident report as per aforesaid Rules as well as Gohar Mohammad vs Uttar Pradesh State Road and Transport Corporation others, supra, has been filed, the proceedings under the Accident Claims Tribunal shall deemed to be initiated and the petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is only a 6 reminder to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to perform its duty under Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules and to process the claim petition. In view of above facts and circumstances on record, the petition cannot be said to be filed beyond the period of limitation. However, it is clarified that this order shall be subject to the outcome of the above litigation pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the application filed by the respondent No.2 is dismissed. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, there are no orders as to cost. Application stands disposed of.” 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed learned Tribunal calls for no interference. It is settled law that for the purpose of deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is to peruse the plaint, that is to say in the present case in the claim petition alongwith documents appended therewith and the stand of the defendant on merit is not to be considered. 8. In the present case, in Para 3 of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 plea of the petitioner was that as the accident had occurred on 12.06.2022 and the claim petition was filed on 11.09.2023, the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. Yet, in response this was denied by the claimant. Learned Tribunal has also in Para-5 onwards giving reasoning as 7 to why it was rejecting the application. 9. Having carefully perused the contents of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the reasoning assigned by the learned Tribunal in the peculiar facts of this case whether or not the claim petition can be stated to have been filed within the period of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Further, a perusal of the reply filed by the Insurance Company to the claim petition demonstrates that this plea has been taken in the reply filed to the claim petition also. In the light of this fact, obviously, learned Tribunal will have to frame the issue with regard to limitation and therein this issue can be decided by the learned Tribunal in the light of the respective evidence that may be made by the parties. For the said reason, in the interest of justice, the order that has been passed by the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. It would be in the interest of the parties, in case, the issue of limitation is decided in the course of the adjudication of the claim petition itself and in the peculiar facts, rejection of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC calls for no interference. However, it is observed that in case any issue is framed by the 8 Tribunal with regard to limitation, then the same be decided by the learned Tribunal without being influenced by the observations passed by the Tribunal in the impugned order or by this Court on merit. 10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed without interfering with the impugned order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2025 (Vinod)