1 2026:CGHC:18412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 233 of 2025 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- The Branch Manager, S-08 And 09, 2nd Floor, C.G. Plaza Agrasen Chowk, Beside Telephone Exchange Bilaspur ( C.G. ). ... Revisioner/applicant versus 1 - Ishwari Shrivas W/o Late Suraj Shrivas Aged About 29 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Ward No. 06, Bade Gantuli P.S. And Tahsil Kosir District- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh ( C.G. ). Present Address Ward No. 34 Navapara Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 2 - Heena Shrivas D/o Late Suraj Shrivas Aged About 10 Years Minor Through- Mother Ishwari ( Resp. No. 1 ) R/o Thakurdiya Para, Ward No. 06, Bade Gantuli P.S. And Tahsil Kosir District- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh ( C.G. ). Present Address Ward No. 34 Navapara Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 3 - Sandeep Shrivas S/o Late Suraj Shrivas Aged About 8 Years Minor Through- Mother Ishwari Shrivas ( Resp. No. 1 ) R/o Thakurdiya Para, Ward No. 06, Bade Gantuli P.S. And Tahsil Kosir District- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh ( C.G. ). Present Address Ward No. 34 Navapara Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 4 - Rambai Shrivas W/o Mangal Shrivas, R/o Thakurdiya Para, Ward No. 06, Bade Gantuli P.S. And Tahsil Kosir District- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh ( C.G. ). Present Address Ward No. 34 Navapara Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 5 - Mangal Shrivas S/o Bhagat Shrivas Aged About 53 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Ward No. 06, Bade Gantuli P.S. And Tahsil Kosir District- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh ( C.G. ). Present Address Ward No. 34 Navapara Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 2 6 - Umesh Chandra S/o Lakeshwar Chandra Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bade Gantuli, P.S. And Tahsil Kosir, Distt- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh ( C.G. ). ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 / claimants For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Rakesh Kashyap, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. { Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 22/04/2026 Heard. 1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC”) has been preferred by Appellant – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 137 of 2025 whereby an application filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 /claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “MV Act, 1988”) has been registered by condoning the delay in filing the claim application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant / revisioner would submit that issue with regard to condoning the delay in filing the claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 is under consideration before the Apex Court and it has been held by the Supreme court that the Tribunals and High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground that such petitions are barred by limitation. He further submits that this revision petition may be disposed of directing the Claims Tribunal to proceed with the claim case, however, no final award shall be passed until subsequent development or authoritative pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the field. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to allow aforesaid prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The issue as to whether delay in filing the claim applications under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 may be condoned or not, is pending consideration before the Apex Court in various cases. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ayiti Navaneetha and others & others {Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8412 – 8413 of 2023 and connected matters), wherein, vide order dated 4.11.2025, it has been specifically observed that the Tribunals and High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground that such petitions are barred by limitation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 7. Taking note of the aforesaid interim directions, this Court, vide its order dated 11.09.2025, had stayed the further proceedings of MACT No. 137 of 2025, which is pending consideration before the Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid issue is also pending consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Dash Vs. Union of India and another 1 . 8. Having considered the aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ayatinavnita & others (supra) and the contention made by learned counsel for both the parties, this revision petition is disposed of directing the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the claim Case No. 137 of 2025 {Ishwari Shriwas and others vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., however, no final award shall be passed. 1 WPC No. 166 of 2024, vide order dated 19.03.2026 4 9. It is observed that if there is any subsequent development or authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme court Governing the field, it shall be open to either party to bring the same to notice of the concerned Claims Tribunal, which shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and in consonance with such pronouncement. 10. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the civil revision stands disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.04.25 10:45:19 +0530