1 2025:CGHC:9672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 43 of 2025 • Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through - Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant no-3) --- Applicant versus 1. Bholendra Kashyap S/o Shri Shivram Kashyap Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bodra Police Chowki Ghotiya, P.S. Lohandiguda, District Bastar (C.G.) (Claimant) 2. Sanjit Singh Kosre S/o Nijam Singh Kosre Aged About 33 Years R/o Chhindgaon, Patelpara P.S. Badaji, District Bastar (C.G.) (Driver) 3. Smt Jayanti Baghel W/o Shri Shivram Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 169, Dhuragaon, P.S. Lohandiguda, District Bastar (C.G.) (Owner) --- Respondents CR No. 44 of 2025 2 • Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through- Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Benuram Baghel S/o Shri Bhadru Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bodra Police Chowki Ghotiya, P.S. Lohandiguda, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Sanjit Singh Kosre S/o Nijam Singh Kosre Aged About 33 Years R/o Chhindgaon, Patelpara P.S. Badaji, District Bastar (C.G.)(Driver) 3. Smt Jayanti Baghel W/o Shri Shivram Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 169, Dhuragaon, P.S. Lohandiguda, District Bastar (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 25/02/2025 1. Since both the Revisions arise out of the same accident, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard on the application (I.A. No.02/2025 in both the Revisions) for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revisions. 3. There is delay of 33 days. 3 4. Upon due consideration, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. These Revision have been filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2024 passed in Claim Case No.18/2023 and Claim Case No.16/2023 respectively by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby, the applications preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC were dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal has condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petitions before it. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter by allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not maintainable. He submits that as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a limitation of six months for preferring a Claim Petition and there is no provision for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing the said Claim Petition. Hence, the Tribunal should not have condoned the delay. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending adjudication in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the High Court of Kerala has also taken a view in the matter of Akshay Raj vs. Ministry of Law and Legislative Department, 2023 LiveLaw 4 (Ker) 50 that the matter is condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 and the said matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 7. In the matter of Malrawan vs. Praveen Travels reported in 2023 SCC Online Madras 5467, the Madras High Court has taken a view that in view of the provision contained under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, once it is incumbent upon the Police to forward the First Accident Report (FAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to the Claims Tribunal, the said report can also be treated to be a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, mere pendency of matters before the Supreme Court concerning applicability of the Limitation Act would not be a sufficient ground to interfere in the matter. 8. In the matter of Akshay Raj (supra), the Kerala High Court has also considered the effect of Annexure XIII to Central Motor Vehicles Rules as also the aspect of statutory liability to submit the DAR. 9. Since the issue concerning delay in filing the Claim Petition under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory requirement of submission of DAR before the Claims Tribunal by the Police has been raised before the Supreme Court, which was decided by the Kerala High Court in Akshay Raj (supra), the present Revision is disposed of directing the Claims Tribunal not to pass final award in 5 Claim Petitions pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Supreme Court. 10.The Tribunal is further directed to reconsider the application and pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue, which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka