1 2025:CGHC:6187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 29 of 2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Rk Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Bibi Bai Wd/o Late Ledwa Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Chainpur, Thana Kusmi, Tehsil Samri, District - Balrampur -Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anil Paikra S/o Late Ledwa Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chainpur, Thana Kusmi, Tehsil Samri, District - Balrampur -Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Panesh Ram Paikra S/o Late Ledwa Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chainpur, Thana Kusmi, Tehsil Samri, District - Balrampur -Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhananjay Yadav S/o Mahesh Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Navadieh, Thana And Tehsil Kusmi, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ajeshwar Minj S/o Baju Minj Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Tangatoli, Thana And Tehsil Kusmi, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI 2025.02.05 15:04:40 +0530 2 04.02.2025 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur at Ramanujganj in Claim Case No.58/2023, whereby, application filed by the applicant/defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents No.1 to 3 (claimants therein) have preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (for short the “MV Act 1988”) on account of death of deceased Ledwa Ram who is husband and father of the claimants, respectively. The deceased met with motor vehicle accident on 07.03.2021 and succumbed to the injuries caused by the accident on 22.03.2021. Thereafter, a Merg intimation was registered on 22.04.2021 and an FIR was lodged on 18.06.2021 and claimants have preferred claim petition on 24.08.2023. The applicant/defendant No.3 has raised an objection by way of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that in the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 which came into effect from 01.04.2022, a new sub section (3) has been inserted to Section 166 which says that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident, however, the claim case has been filed after lapse of six months, therefore, it is not maintainable. However, learned Claims Tribunal referring the precedents decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivkumar Binjhwar and Ors [Civil Revision No.145/2023 – 2024:CGHC:33018] 3 and placing reliance on the order passed by the High Court of Madras in CRP No.2558/2023 (Malarvan Vs. Praveen Travels Pvt. Ltd. and ors), dismissed the objection raised by the applicant – Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant Insurance Company would submit that according to the provision of Section 166 (3) of the MV Act 1988, no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of occurrence of the accident and it is explicit that said claim petition has been filed beyond the said period and there is no provision to condone the delay, therefore, the claim petition itself is not maintainable. However, he fairly admits that FIR was lodged within six months from the date of accident but Accident Information Report was not submitted before the Claims Tribunal. He lastly submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed grave error in rejecting the objection raised by the applicant and prays to allow the revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. In the matter of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivkumar Binjhwar and Ors [CR No.145/2023 (2024:CGHC:33018)], the said Insurance Company has raised similar objection and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the said revision placed reliance in the matter of Gohar Mohammad Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors [(2023) 4 SCC 381] wherein directions and guidelines have been issued for Investigating Officer while dealing with accident cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 4 “41. The Investigating Officer shall within 90 days compile all relevant documents and material in the form of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) in Form−VII accompanying site plan Form−VIII, mechanical inspection report Form−IX, verification report Form−X and the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) It would be the duty of the registering authority to verify the registration certificate, driving licence, fitness and permit in respect of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident and the same is required to be submitted within 15 days to the Investigating Officer to complete the IAR and DAR. The extension of time limit to file IAR and DAR is only permissible where the Investigating Officer approaches the Claims Tribunal in cases where parties reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court or where the driver’s licence is issued outside the jurisdiction of the Court or where the victim(s) have suffered grievous injuries and are undergoing continuous treatment. 42. Thus, the Investigating Officer shall furnish FAR within 48 hours, IAR within 50 days, complete the investigation within 60 days and file DAR within 90 days. Copy of DAR shall be furnished to the victim(s), owner(s)/driver(s) of the vehicle(s), the insurance company involved and the State Legal Services Authority including the Nodal Officer of the insurance company and the General Insurance Council. 43. On perusal of the above, it is clear that to carry out the purpose of the provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of the M.V. Amendment Act, the Officer In−charge of the police station and the registering authority are required to act upon in a manner as prescribed in the Rules within the period as specified, thereby on receiving the information of accident, the complete information regarding such accident is to be made available before the Claims Tribunal within the time limit without delay. As per Rules, the failure to perform the duties by the police officer may entail severe consequences as envisaged under the provisions of the State Police Act. 44. Thus, legislative intent is clear that on reporting a road accident the Investigation Officer must complete all his action within time frame and shall act as facilitator to 5 the victim(s)/claimant(s), insurance company by furnishing all details in prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may get damages/compensation without delay.” 6. As per scheme of the MV Act 1988, three different recourse are available to the claimant in order to avail claim compensation. The first recourse is to claim compensation as per provision of Section 164 of the MV Act 1988 for no fault or liability, the second is to file a claim case under Section 166 (2) of the MV Act 1988 which must be filed within six months from the date of accident and the third recourse available to the claimant would be the reports submitted by the police or Investigating Officer before the Claims Tribunal if the claimant fails to take recourse either under Section 164 or 166 of the MV Act 1988. In third situation, the report submitted by the investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal, within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred, may be treated as claim application under Section 166(4) and would not debar the claimant(s) to seek compensation if he/they could not file the application under Section 166(1) of the Act. The said proposition was laid down in Para 51 of the Gohar Mohammad (Supra) which is reproduced hereunder:- “51. On perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that as a first recourse by not pleading or establishing proof of wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or driver or of the vehicle, the compensation can be claimed under Section 164, but such compensation is of limited amount to the tune, as specified in case of death or grievous injury. The second recourse available to the claimant(s) is to apply by proving wrongful act and neglect of the owner(s) or the driver(s) before the Claims Tribunal by opting the jurisdiction at a place specified under Section 166(2) but such claim must be filed within six months from the date of accident and be adjudicated by the 6 Tribunal. The third recourse has been prescribed by introducing Section 149 of M.V. Amendment Act by which in case the claimant(s) have failed to take recourse either under Section 164 or Section 166 within the prescribed period of limitation, the report submitted by the investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal, within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred, may be treated as claim application under Section 166(4) and would not debar the claimant(s) to seek compensation if he/they could not file the application under Section 166(1) of the Act.” 7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) has taken a view that if the claimant who has lodged an FIR within a period of six months from the date of accident but has failed to move an application under Section 166 (2) of the MV Act before the concerned Tribunal, his application moved under Section 166 (2) may be treated as an application under Section 166 (4) of the MV Act and it cannot be dismissed on account of provisions of Section 166 (3) of the MV Act. However, if no such report is lodged at the police station, the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the MV Act can be exercised by the learned Tribunal. 8. Considering the benevolent object of the MV Act, this Court is fully agreed with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid case wherein harmonious construction has been made in order to advance the cause of justice and only on technical reasons, the benefit of such provision cannot be curtailed. 9. Moreover, the object of the amendment in MV Act is not to curtail the rights of the claimants but to achieve the speedy settlement and disposal in such matters. 7 10.It is expected from the Insurance Company that as and when the fact regarding lodging of FIR comes to their notice, a nodal officer should be appointed and a proposal may be made for speedy settlement before the Claims Tribunal. 11.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order impugned and thus the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 12.Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. 13.Before parting with the case, this Court also observes that sufficient time has been passed after passing of the judgment of Gohar Mohammad (Supra), therefore, it is expected that the State machinery shall make every effort to comply with the guidelines and directions issued in the aforesaid judgment so that Investigating Officer is able to complete proceeding of IAR and DAR well within time. 14.Shri Dilman Rati Minj, GA for the State who is present before this Court is requested to apprise the observation made in this order to the Secretary of the concerned Department. 15.Registrar General, after due approval, may also issue circular to the effect that a periodical review shall be made in the Monthly Monitoring Meeting regarding progress made in compliance of directions and guidelines issued in Gohar Mohammad (Supra). Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay