Page No.1 of 4 IN CR-28-2025 2025:CGHC:6017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 28 of 2025 1 - Rupesh Kumar @ Rupendra S/o Shivlal Dhanuhaar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Rainpur (Chaitma) Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba (C.G.) (Vehicle Driver) 2 - Ghasiram Kumhar S/o Mangal Kumhar Aged About 58 Years R/o Purani Basti, Near Durga Mandir, Katghora, P.S. And Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) (Vehicle Owner) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Late Omprakash Nayak Aged About 55 Years Caste - Nayak And R/o Ghurau Chal, Ward No. 09, Tilak Nagar, Katghora, P.S. And Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Kamal Nayak S/o Late Omprakash Nayak Aged About 40 Years Caste - Nayak And R/o Ghurau Chal, Ward No. 09, Tilak Nagar, Katghora, P.S. And Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Ganeshwar Nayak S/o Late Omprakash Nayak Aged About 33 Years Caste - Nayak And R/o Ghurau Chal, Ward No. 09, Tilak Nagar, Katghora, P.S. And Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar Pandey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 03 . 02 .202 5 1. Heard on admission. 2. This civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is directed against impugned order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-A/1), passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.02.04 16:00:08 +0530 Page No.2 of 4 IN CR-28-2025 Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG) [for short the “tribunal”], by which the application filed by the non-applicants herein under Section 05 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and the delay in filing the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”) has been condoned. 3. Mr. Vikash Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned tribunal is absolutely unjustified in allowing the application of the non-applicants for condonation of delay in filing the claim application by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 1 to buttress his submissions. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and considered his rival submissions and went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to answer the plea raised at the bar, it would be first appropriate to notice sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 166 of the MV Act, which reads as under: “166. Application for compensation.- (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. 1 1991 AIR 2156 Page No.3 of 4 IN CR-28-2025 (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Section 159 as an application for compensation under this Act.” 6. A bare perusal of the above-quoted provision would show that as per sub-section (3) of Section 166 no application for compensation shall be entertained by the authority unless it is made within six months of the date of the accident. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the MV Act was inserted in the statute book w.e.f. 01.09.2019 by Act 32 of 2019. Further, sub-section (4) of Section 166 provides that the claims tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Section 159 as an application for compensation under the MV Act. 7. The Kerala High Court in the matter of Akshay Raj v. Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department 2 has clearly held that Section 166(3) of the MV act does not exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act and, consequently, the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would squarely be applicable and observed in Para-04 of the judgment as under: “4. Section 166(3) does not exclude the applicability of the limitation Act 1963 and therefore the provisions of Section 29(2) of the limitation Act 1963 would squarely be applicable for the reason that on perusal of provisions of sub Section 4 of Section 166, it is evident that even in the absence of claim preferred by a claimant, the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents by police/investigation officer forwarded to it under section 159 as an application for compensation under this Act. Section 159 enjoins an obligation upon the police officer during the investigation to prepare an Accident Information Report for 2 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50 Page No.4 of 4 IN CR-28-2025 facilitating the settlement of claim in such formal manner within three (3) months containing such particular and submit to the claim Tribunal or any other agency as prescribed.” 8. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the judgment of Kerala High Court in Akshay Raj (supra) and, in light of sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the MV Act, I am of the considered opinion that the learned tribunal is absolutely justified in entertaining the application of the non-applicants filed under Section 05 of the Limitation Act as also in condoning the delay occurred in filing the claim application, finding sufficient cause for the same. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-A/1), passed by the learned tribunal, which warrants interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, this civil revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if