Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010184942024 2026:GAU-AS:2315 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/353/2024 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS CORPORATE AND REGISTERED OFFICE AT E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, INDIA, PIN- 302022 AND ONE OF THE BRANCH OFFICES AT B.R. ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE TO PRIYA PALACE HOTEL, 21, JANAPATH, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007, KAMRUP. VERSUS HARIDHAN DAS @ HARIPADA AND 3 ORS FATHER, SON OF LATE SADHAN CHANDRA DAS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHOTO MAMDA, RONGTHAL BASTI, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788103. 2:PRATHIBHA DAS @ PRATIVA MOTHER W/O- HARIDHAN DAS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHOTO MAMDA RONGTHAL BASTI P.S.- LAKHIPUR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788103. 3:BIJAY KUMAR RAY SON OF LATE NIBARAN RAY Page No.# 2/4 VILLAGE- BINNAKANDI GRANT II P.O.- BINNAKANDI P.S.- LAKHIPUR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788126. OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS- 11/DC- 4915. 4:KUMUD CHAKRABORTY SON OF DIGENDRA CHAKRABORTY VILLAGE- SADAGRAM P.O. AND P.S.- DHOLAI DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788114. DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-11/DC-4915 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A J SAIKIA, MR. S. PEGU,M CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : MR A B DEY (R-1,2), BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 13.02.2026 1. Learned counsel Mr. A. J. Saikia is present for the Insurance Company and learned counsel Mr. A. B. Dey is present for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Office note dated 10.02.2026 indicates that notices have been served to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 but the respondents are not represented today. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the CPC as he is aggrieved by the impugned Page No.# 3/4 order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned Member,. MACT, Cachar at Silchar. 4. The petitioner’s submission that the claim petition was barred by law was not considered by the Tribunal. It was provided that the claim petition was filed on 23.12.2022 with a delay of 2 years 10 months from the date of the accident which occurred on 02.02.2020. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents laid stress in his argument that the claim petition was not barred by law as the accident occurred on 02.02.2020 and the FIR was registered on 12.02.2020. It has already been held by this Court in Jitumoni Saloi @Haloi & Anr Vs. The Union of India & Ors, vide order dated 21.10.2024 in connection with CRP/102/2024 that:- “ It is to be noted here that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gohar Mohammed (supra) and also the Rule 159 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the Investigating Officer is bound to prepare an Accident Information Report and furnish the same to the stakeholders, Insurance Companies and the jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the same should be treated as the claim petition. And if the same is treated as claim petition, the question of limitation does not arise here in this case. 11. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to allow this petition. Therefore, it is provided that the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup at Amingaon shall make an effort to find out whether the Investigating Officer of Changsari P.S. has forwarded an Accident Information Report to it or not and if not, then it shall call for the same along with the FIR of the said case and treat the same as claim petition and thereafter, shall proceed to hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.” 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Bhagwat Singh & Ors (CR-3315-2025). The accident occurred on 14.01.2022 and the claim petition was filed on 11.11.2022. In the meantime, Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 had come Page No.# 4/4 into force providing six months period under Section 166(3) of the Act to file the claim petition. This case is still subjudiced in the Supreme Court. 8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel Mr. A. J. Saikia that no order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court staying the case of Bhagwat Singh (Supra). It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order that the Tribunal may announce the final judgment, but it shall be subject to the final outcome of this revision petition in connection with Bhagwat Singh(Supra). 9. Reverting back to the case in hand, this civil revision petition stands disposed of with a direction that the learned Tribunal, MACT, Cachar shall make an effort to find out whether the I.O. of the Lakhipur P.S. had forwarded an Accident Incident Report (AIR for short) to the Tribunal or not, and if not then the Tribunal shall call for the AIR and the FIR of the said case and treat the same as claim petition, and shall thereafter proceed to hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 10. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant