1 CGHC010350962026 2026:CGHC:41263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1232 of 2026 1 - Khajen Tulavi S/o Duwaru Tulavi Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Kalwar Police Station Madanwada, Tahsil Manpur, District- Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh- Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Ram Kishan Yadav S/o Late Hari Singh Yadav (Vehicle Ower R/o Chhattisgarh Engineering Workshop Paneka Chowk Gokul Nagar P.S. Basantpur Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Mohit Construction, Through The Authorize Person R/o Chhattisgarh Engineering Workshop Paneka Chowk Gokul Nagar P.S. Basantpur Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Kalesh Kumar Netam S/o Suklu Ram Netam Aged About 24 Years R/o Kalwar P.S. Madanwada, Tehsil Manpur, Distt- Mohla- Manpur- A. Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Neelkamal Kujur S/o Late Bandhu Kujur Aged About 25 Years R/o Kalwar P.S. Madanwada, Tehsil Manpur, Distt- Mohla- Manpur- A. Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22.09.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.25 17:32:22 +0530 2 17.06.2025 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Mohla Manpur, Ambagarh Chowki, (C.G.), whereby the claim case filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘The MV Act’) has been dismissed at threshold on the ground of it being barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he filed the aforesaid claim case under Section 166 of the MV Act before the concerned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation alleging that on 16.05.2022 while his minor daughter namely Laddo Tulavi, aged about 10 years, was present in the courtyard of his house, a water tanker, being driven rashly and negligently, entered into courtyard of his house after breaking the boundary wall and struck the minor child, as a result of which, she sustained fatal injuries on her head and died on spot. A criminal case was registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the MV Act. Charge-sheet was also filed on 15.12.2022. The accident was occurred on 16.05.2022 whereas the claim application under Section 166 of The MV Act was filed after a period of about three years. The petitioner offered explanation that he is a poor rustic agriculturist residing in a remote tribal/rural area and after death of his minor daughter he suffered severe mental trauma. Thus, owing to his socio-economic circumstances and lack of legal awareness he could not approach the Claims Tribunal within the prescribed period and the claim petition was consequently filed with delay, however, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide order impugned dated 17.06.2025 on the ground of limitation, without accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay. 3 3. The Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical approach while considering the petitioner's claim. It is contended that the petitioner had disclosed sufficient and bona fide circumstances explaining delay, particularly the death of his minor daughter, the consequent mental trauma, his rural and economically disadvantaged background and lack of legal awareness. The proceedings under the MV Act are intended to provide just compensation to victims of motor accidents and their dependants and therefore the claim ought not to have been rejected at threshold merely on a technical ground without properly considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner. He would also submit that the issue of limitation to file claim case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of limitation for filing claim case, the proceeding of the present claim case before the Claims Tribunal may be ordered to be initiated by setting aside the impugned order and by remanding back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on petitioner's application explaining delay, and for proceeding with the claim case in accordance with law. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The claim arises out of a motor accident resulting in to death of the petitioner's minor daughter, aged about 10 years. The petitioner has attributed the delay in approaching the Tribunal to the circumstances pleaded by him, including the death of his minor daughter, the resultant mental trauma, his rural and economically disadvantaged background and lack of legal awareness. At this stage, this Court is not required to 4 adjudicate upon the merits of the claim for compensation. The limited question is whether the petitioner's explanation for the delay deserved proper consideration by the learned Tribunal before the claim petition was rejected at the threshold. 6. So far as application under Section 5 of The Limitation Act is concerned, there is an amendment incorporated in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with effect from 01.04.2022 which provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months after occurance of the accident. The said provisions of the MV Act is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8412/2023 and the issue of limitation is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said SLP (C), has ordered on 04.11.2025 that :- "It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, that the Tribunal or High Court shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under Sub-Section 3 or Section 16 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.” 7. When the issue is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the beneficial law of the MV Act, dismissing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, does not appear to be sustainable particularly in the light of binding interim directions of the Supreme Court passed in the said SLP. The petitioner/claimant being the sufferer can very well maintain his claim application before the Tribunal. Thus, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the fact that claim pertains to compensation arising out of the death of a minor child, this Court is of the considered opinion 5 that the explanation furnished by the petitioner requires consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The impugned order of rejection of claim application solely on the ground of limitation without considering the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, warrants interference of this court, particularly keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The concerned Claims Tribunal is directed to decide the claim application of the petitioner on its own merit keeping in view the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.8412 of 2023. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal/Trial Court on 15.10.2026. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder