1 2026:CGHC:26267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 69 of 2026 S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager 2nd Floor, Shop No. 207-208, Rama Port, Main Road, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 3) ... Applicant versus 1 - Tulsa Manjhi W/o Late Amrit Lal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Damini Manjhi Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Vedprakash Manjhi Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Mother Tulsa Manjhi, W/o Late Amrit Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Komal Manjhi Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Tulsa Manjhi, W/o Late Amrit Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Naitik Manjhi Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Tulsa Manjhi, W/o Late Amrit Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 6 - Bhushan Manikpuri S/o Milau Das Manikpuri Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Ward No. 07, Badi Koni, Thana Koni, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 10 F.A. 7616) 7 - Kuldeep Prasad Kaushik S/o Raj Kumar Kaushik Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sakri, Takhatpur, Thana Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 10 F.A. 7616) 8 - Sukhlal Manjhi S/o Pardeshi Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.06.29 17:11:02 +0530 2 9 - Smt. Sahodara Manjhi W/o Sukhlal Manjhi Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 5, 8 & 9 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents No.1 to 5/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "Act 1988"), before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) (in brevity the "Claims Tribunal") on 01.11.2023 for grant of compensation in respect of accident occurred on 24.9.2022, which has been registered as MACT Case No.79/2025. Since the claimants filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Act 1988 after lapse of six months, i.e. one year six days from the date of the accident, the applicant herein (Insurance Company) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, however, the same has been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the issue relating to the applicability of the Limitation Act in applications filed under Section 166 of the Act 1988 is currently pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In a batch of related proceedings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that claim applications under Section 166 ought not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation, rather, final orders should not be passed while the issue of limitation remains pending before the Apex Court. 3 4. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays that, at this stage, this revision may be disposed of with a direction to the learned Claims Tribunal to proceed with the matter, provided that no final order be passed until the adjudication of the issue by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. The grievance of the applicant herein is that even after lapse of one year from the date of accident, the concerned Tribunal has registered the motor accident claim case for hearing. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Ayiti Navaneetha and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8412–8413/2023 and connected matters) vide order dated 04.11.2025, specifically observed that the Tribunals and the High Courts shall not dismiss claim cases on the ground that such cases are barred by limitation under 3 Section 166(3) of the Act 1988. The Similar issue is also pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166/2024). Thus, it is explicit that the subject issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the submission of the applicant, instead of keeping the present revision pending, without entering into the merits of the case, the same is disposed of directing the concerned Claims Tribunal to proceed in the concerned claim case in accordance with law, however, no final order shall be passed until the issue of limitation is finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-cited cases or in other similar cases. 8. It is also observed that in the eventuality of any subsequent development or authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the subject issue, it shall be open to either party to bring the 4 same to the notice of the concerned Tribunal, which shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and in consonance with such pronouncement. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini