1 CGHC010321142025 2026:CGHC:38428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 203 of 2025 S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Office 4th Floor, Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Insurance Company) ... Applicant/Non-Applicant No.3 versus 1 - Jagdish Prasad D/o Pusau Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Sector 10, Street No. 37, Qtr. No. 5-B, Bhilai, Thana Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, C.G. 2 - Dr. S. R. Thakur (Salik Ram Thakur) S/o L. R. Thakur R/o Qtr. No. 84-C, Sanket Colony, Katulboad (Near Radhika Fenox), Mohan Nagar, Durg, C.G. (Owner And Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G./07/C.F./8993) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Deeksha Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (31st August, 2026) Grievance of the applicant/insurance company in the present revision petition is that respondent No.1/claimant had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act of 1988”) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant/insurance company filed an application under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 on the ground that the application filed by respondent No.1/claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 is barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected as being barred by limitation. However, the learned 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short “the Tribunal”) rejected the application filed by the applicant/insurance company under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and allowed the application filed by respondent No.1/claimant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide impugned order dated 31.1.2024 passed in Claim Case No.219/2024. 02. Learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company would submit that the impugned order is per se illegal and against the settled principle of law. In the present case, the accident occurred on 4.10.2022 whereas the claim petition was filed on 27.9.2023. He submits that as per provisions of Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed as being time barred but the 3 learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the aforesaid provisions of law and wrongly dismissed the application filed by the applicant/insurance company under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and consequently, the claim petition be dismissed as barred by limitation. 03. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 did not make any submission. 04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 05. 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 Section 166(3) of the Act of 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. 06. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the submission of the applicant, instead of keeping the 4 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 case or in other similar cases. 07. 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. 08. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. 09. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.08.31 15:23:02 +0530