1 CGHC010482282025 2026:CGHC:30709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 303 of 2025 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through - Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Davendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Applicant / Insurer versus 1 - Rahul Patel S/o Devnandan Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tendua, Post Ranai, Tehsil And P.S.- Patna, District - Korea (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Jageshwar Yadav S/o Late Mahonar Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Vasapara, Police Outpost Basdei, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Owner) 3 - Deepak Sahu S/o Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Basapara, P.O. Basdei, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Driver) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1 For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : : Mr. Ishwar Prasad Rathod, Advocate. Mr. Viplove Yadav, Advocate. { Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the civil revision . 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, which is well supported by affidavit, delay of 90 days in filing the civil revision is hereby condoned. 3. Also head on admission. 4. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC”) has been preferred by Appellant – ICICI Lombard General Insurance 2 Company Limited, challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by third Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) {for short, “Claims Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 32 /2023 {Rahul Patel Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and others} whereby Claims Tribunal allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by respondent /claimant and registered the claim application filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “MV Act, 1988”). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in respect of aforesaid claim application filed by the respondent/ claimant, accident had occurred on 27.04.2022 whereas claim application was filed by the respondent/claimant on 9.2.2023, which is more than 6 months from the date dated of accident, as such, the claim application filed by the respondent/claimant is barred by the provisions contained in Section 166 (3) of the MV Act, 1988, despite that learned Claims Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing the claim application by allowing the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thus, the impugned order is perverse and illegal. Hence, he prays that instant civil revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 may be set aside to the extent of allowing application filed by the respondent -claimant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would support the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 would support the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The issue as to whether delay in filing the claim applications under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 may be condoned or not, is pending consideration before the Apex Court in various cases. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ayiti Navaneetha and others & others {Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8412 – 8413 of 2023 and connected matters), wherein, vide 3 order dated 4.11.2025, it has been specifically observed that the Tribunals and High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground that such petitions are barred by limitation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 11. Taking note of the aforesaid interim directions, this Court, vide its order dated 26.11.2025, had stayed the further proceedings of MACT No. 32/2023, which is pending consideration before the Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid issue is also pending consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Dash Vs. Union of India and another 1 . 12. Having considered the aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ayatinavnita & others (supra) and the contention made by learned counsel for both the parties, this revision petition is disposed of directing the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the M.A.C.T. Case No. 32 /2023 {Rahul Patel Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and others}, however, no final award shall be passed. 13. It is observed that if there is any subsequent development or authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme court Governing the field, it shall be open to either party to bring the same to notice of the concerned Claims Tribunal, which shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and in consonance with such pronouncement. 14. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the civil revision stands disposed of. 15. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit 1 WPC No. 166 of 2024, vide order dated 19.03.2026 AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.22 11:00:12 +0530 4 ({JUDGE_NAME}) JUDGE PSName