APHC010029182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 172/2026 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, LEGAL BRANCH OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GEDELA LATCHAMMA, W/O. LATE G. MUSALAYYA AGED 55 YEARS, D.NO. 6-13, AKKIVALASA VILLAGE GOTIVADA PANCHAYAT, JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GEDELA YERRANNA, S/O. LATE G MUSALAYYA, AGED 35 YEARS, D.NO. 6-13, AKKIVALASA VILLAGE GOTIVADA PANCHAYAT, JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NAVIRI POTHAYYA, S/O. YERAKAYYA, AGED 38 YEARS. DRIVER GOTIVADA VILLAGE JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. NAVIRI RAMANA, S/O. RAMULU, AGED 25 YEARS. OWNER, GOTIVADA VILLAGE SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): Nil The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri T. Ravi Teja, learned Counsel representing Ms. A. Jayanthi, learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam, dated 09.09.2025, dismissing I.A.No.349 of 2025 in M.V.O.P.No.198 of 2023. The Petitioner herein is the Insurance Company, which is the Respondent in M.V.O.P.No.198 of 2023. The said Insurance Company filed I.A.No.349 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the Petition on the ground that the Motor Accident Claim filed by the Claimants is beyond the period of limitation. 3. The Applicant in I.A.No.349 of 2025 has placed reliance on the Amendment made to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein the Amendment has stipulated a limitation period of six months for filing a Claim Petition from the date of the occurrence of the accident. The Applicant would contend that the Amendment came into effect on 01.04.2022, and the Claim Petition of the Respondents ought to have been filed within six months from date of the occurrence of the accident or within six months from the date of the Amendment. Admittedly, the Claim Petition has been presented by the Claimants on 16.08.2023. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the road accident occurred on 30.11.2010. The Claimants have not approached the Tribunal prior to the Amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and admittedly, the Claim Petition 1. 3 was presented beyond the six months9 period from 01.04.2022, i.e., on 16.08.2023. 5. The contention of the Applicant is to the effect that the Amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to the imposition of six months9 limitation came into effect on 01.04.2022, and the Claim Petition was presented well beyond six months from the date of the amendment. It is also the submission of the Applicant that the date of accident, i.e., 30.11.2010, which is prior to the Amendment, is of no relevance, and even in such a case, the limitation of six months would commence from 01.04.2022. It is therefore, contended by the Applicant/Insurance Company/Revision Petitioner herein that the III Additional Sessions and District Judge, Srikakulam erred in dismissing I.A.No.349 of 2025 vide Order dated 09.09.2025. 6. The Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, had dismissed the said Application by holding that the Amendment is only prospective in nature and that the said Amendment would not apply to the instant case, as the accident occurred prior to the coming into force of the Amendment, inasmuch as the date of accident is 30.11.2010. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner (Insurance Company) had placed reliance on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Santhi v/s Suresh, in C.R.P.(P.D) No. 4066 of 2022, dated 07.12.2022. 8. The facts in C.R.P.No.4066 of 2022 that was considered by the Madras High Court would indicate that the Claim Petition was presented within 19 days from the date of the Amendment while the accident occurred prior to the Amendment. Although the learned Single Judge made an observation that the limitation of six months would apply even in cases where the accident had occurred prior to the Amendment, the facts in Shanti’s case are that the Claim Petition was presented within the six months9 period after the Amendment came into force. Therefore, the observations made in Paragraph 6 of the 4 Order that the limitation would apply even in cases where the accident had occurred prior to the amendment can only be treated as an obiter dicta but not as the ratio decidendi because of the fact that the issue under consideration before the learned Session Judge of the Hon9ble High Court of Madras is entirely different. 9. This Apart, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted across the table an Interim Order passed by the Hon9ble Apex Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd V. Ayiti Navaneetha : SLP (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023, wherein the Hon9ble Apex Court made the following observations: <2. This court has been informed that there are number of petitions across the country filed on the same issue and any finding recorded by this Court would have bearing on the pending petitions. In that view of the matter, the hearing of these matters requires to be expedited. 3. Pleadings shall be completed, if not already completed, within two weeks from today, failure to do so would result in such those parties loosing their right to file pleadings. 4. It is made clear that learned counsel appearing for the parties are at liberty to file written synopsis, not exceeding five pages, within two weeks from today and each of the counsel would be permitted to address the oral arguments not exceeding half-an- hour. 5. It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunals (Sic) or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) or Section 166(3) (Sic) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.= (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Paragraph 5 of the above extract of the Order passed by the Hon9ble Apex Court has categorically held that while the question of law is being considered by the Hon9ble Apex Court, the Tribunals or the Hon9ble High Courts shall not dismiss the Claim Petitions on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5 11. Having considered these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the reasoning rendered by the learned Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, to the effect that the six months9 limitation which came into effect by virtue of the Amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would apply in the present case, inasmuch as the accident occurred prior to the coming into effect of the Amendment. This Court is also of the view that the provisions dealing with compensation to the victims of motor accidents are the beneficial legislative provisions, and therefore the accrued rights, if any, cannot be retrospectively taken away by a subsequent legislative amendment. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Madras in the case of Santhi v/s Suresh, in C.R.P.(P.D) No. 4066 of 2022, dated 07.12.2022. 12. In any case, the above discussion becomes merely 8academic9 in the light of the direction of the Hon9ble Apex Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd V. Ayiti Navaneetha : SLP (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023 (extracted supra), which is binding on all Courts and Tribunals in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the light of the direction of the Hon9ble Supreme Court ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd V. Ayiti Navaneetha : SLP (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023, the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam shall proceed with the trial of M.V.O.P.No.198 of 2023 and render the Judgment in accordance with law. Needless to state that the final decision of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.198 of 2023 shall be subject to the final outcome in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd V. Ayiti Navaneetha as declared by the Hon9ble Apex Court. 6 14. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Order as to Costs. 15. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 28.01.2026 DSV 7 221 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 172/2026 28.01.2026 DSV 8 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 172/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 28.01.2026 GRKP, J Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV