1 CGHC010030172026 2026:CGHC:35934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 58 of 2026 Branch Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Office At 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Infront Of Lic Building, Pandri District Raipur 492001 ... Applicant. Versus 1 - Akhilesh Patel S/o Nileshwar Patel Aged About 33 Years Occupation Government Servant, Patwari, Permanent R/o. Village- Kurud, P.S. Thankamhariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) Currently Residing At Govind Vihar Colony, P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Shravan Verma S/o Girwar Singh Verma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jhal, Post- Jhal, Tehsil And District Bemetara C.G. ... Respondent(s) (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Ms. Nikita Dubey, Advocate. For Res No.1 : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. This revision has been preferred under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity “CPC”) challenging the orders dated 22.02.2025 and 22.07.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (henceforth "Claims Tribunal") in MACT No.46/2025 whereby application Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.14 10:37:59 +0530 2 filed by the respondent No.1/claimant for condonation of delay has been allowed and application filed by the applicant/Insurance Company under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short “the Act of 1988”) has been rejected, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal on 31.01.2025 on account of accident in a motor accident which took place on 29.04.2024 i.e. after more than six months. Therefore, the applicant/insurance company (non-applicant therein) filed an application under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 on the ground that the aforesaid application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 is liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. However, the learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned orders committed grave error in rejecting the application of the Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant supports the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. The Central Government has published a Gazette Notification dated 8.4.2026 proposing amendment in Section 166 of the Act of 1988 by Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026. By way of aforesaid proposed amendment, the following proviso is to be incorporated in Section 166 after sub-section (3) of the Act of 1988 - “Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain an application for compensation after the expiry of the said period of six months from the date of occurrence of the accident, but within a further period not exceeding twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making an application within such 3 period.” 6. As per Section 1(2) of the aforesaid proposed Amendment Act, it (proposed amendment) shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint; and different dates may be appointed for amendments relating to different enactments mentioned in the Schedule. 7. Indisputably, the application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed by the respondents/claimants after six months from the date of accident, as such their application is barred by limitation as provided in Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ayiti Navaneetha and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8412-8413/2023 and connected matters) vide order dated 4.11.2025, 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 Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988. The similar issue is also pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash Vs. 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. 8. 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 4 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. 9. 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 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. 10.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. 11.Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay