1 2026:CGHC:14431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 356 of 2026 1 - Pankaj Yadav S/o Shri Sadashiv Yadav Aged About 29 Years By Caste- Mahkul, R/o Village And Post Rengle, Thana And Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) 2 - Sadashiv Yadav S/o Shri Jaururam Yadav Aged About 60 Years By Caste- Mahkul, R/o Village And Post Rengle, Thana And Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Akshat Agrawal S/o Shri Vikas Kumar Agrawal Aged About 20 Years By Caste- Agrawal, R/o Village - Bagicha, Thana And Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) 2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor, Galaxy Heights, Near Icici Bank Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocat SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.30 18:41:56 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, in MACT Case No. 16/2025, whereby the application filed by the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and the claim case filed against the Non- applicant No. 3/Insurance Company has been dismissed. By the impugned order, the petitioners have also challenged the order allowing the application filed by the claimant under Section 5 read with Section 12 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 1 is prosecuting a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the learned Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid MACT Case No. 16/2025 on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.03.2021 with the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. CG 11 AP 7897. The said offending vehicle was owned by the petitioner No. 2 and driven by petitioner No. 1. The accident was occurred on 03.03.2021, whereas the application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for compensation has been filed on 03.01.2025 which is much delayed from the date of accident that too after the six month of statutory period as has been 3 fixed in Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. He would also submit that the issue of limitation to file the claim application is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the issue of limitation for filing of the claim case, the proceeding of the present claim case before the learned Claim Tribunal may be stayed. He would also submit that allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 against the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company is also not justified on the ground that it is for the parties to lead the evidence with respect to their involvement and liability and at this stage, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be considered yet the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company has been exonerated by dismissing the claim application against him by invoking the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. In the present petition, the petitioner have claimed two reliefs i.e. (1) the order allowing the application under Section 5 read with Section 12 of the Limitaion Act filed by the claimant and (2) allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 6. With respect to allowing of the application under Section 5 read with Section 12 of Limitation Act, there is an amendment incorporated in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with effect from 01.04.2022 which provided that no application for compensation shall 4 be entertained unless it is made within six months after occurance of the accident. The said provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 2709/2025 and the issue of limitation is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for its consideration. 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 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, allowing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 12 of Limitation Act, does not appears to be suffered from any illegality or perversity. The claimant being the sufferer can very well maintain his claim application before the learned trial Court for which the delay has been condoned. From perusal of the material annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity in allowing the application of the petitioner condoning the delay in filing the claim application. 8. So far as, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is concerned, true it is that the said application is to be considered on the pleading made by the plaint or application, however, in the present case the application has been allowed by the learned Claims Tribunal, considering that though, the claimant has pleaded in this claim 5 application that the offending vehicle was being insured by the Non- applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company, but from the insurance policy produced by the Insurance Company clearly demonstrate that the subject vehicle CG 11 AP 7897 was being insured with the Non- applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company for the period between 07.03.2021 and 06.03.2022 and in the present case, the accident is occurred on 03.03.2021, admittedly on the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured with the Non-applicant No. 3 and for that reason, he has been exonerated and the claim case against the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company has been dismissed. 9. The petitioner could not demonstrate that on the date of alleged accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company and since, the vehicle was not insured with the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from claim application and by allowing the application filed by the petitioner, directed to delete the name of Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 10. Therefore, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika