1 2026:CGHC:19797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 99 of 2026 H.D.F.C. Agro General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Leela Business Park 6th Floor Andheri Kurla R.D. Mumbai, Pin Code 400059 ... Petitioner. versus 1 - Motilal S/o Bhajan Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Davna Tehsil And Police Station Bhaiyathan , District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Urmila W/o Motilal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Davna Tehsil And Police Station Bhaiyathan , District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Rina D/o Motilal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Davna Tehsil And Police Station Bhaiyathan , District- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Bhajan Ram S/o Sukhlal Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Davna Tehsil And Police Station Bhaiyathan , District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Raniya W/o Bhajanram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Davna Tehsil And Police Station Bhaiyathan , District- Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Md. Javed Khan S/o Harun R/o Ward No. 17, Junapara, Bikunthpur, District- Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery & as per writ petition) For Petitioner : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondents : - Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. Although this matter was listed for a default concerning the particulars of respondent No. 6, however, counsel has, with the permission of this Court, cured the said minor default under signature. Consequently, the default is overruled. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents No.1 to 5/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "Act 1988"), before the Third Upper Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (in brevity the "Claims Tribunal") on 04/10/2024 for grant of compensation in respect of accident occurred on 06/04/2024 which has been registered as Claim Case No.130/2024. Since the claimant filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Act 1988 after lapse of 1 year 5 months and 29 days from the date of the accident, the applicant (Insurance Company) filed an application application under Section 166(3) of the Act 1988 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC alleging that claim application of the claimants are barred by limitation as provided under Section 166(3) of the Act 1988, however, the same has been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal observing that claimants have filed application after getting knowledge of closure report filed by the police in respect of such accident, whereas the application filed by the respondents/claimants is clearly time barred. 3 4. Learned counsel further submits that the issue relating to the applicability of the Limitation Act in applications filed under Section 166 of the Act 1988 is currently pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In a batch of related proceedings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that claim applications under Section 166 ought not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation, rather, final orders should not be passed while the issue of limitation remains pending before the Apex Court. 5. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that, at this stage, this revision may be disposed of with a direction to the learned Claims Tribunal to proceed with the matter, provided that no final order be passed until the adjudication of the issue by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. Here the grievance of the applicant herein is that even after lapse of 6 months from the date of accident, the concerned Tribunal has registered the motor accident claim case for hearing. 7. 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 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the submission of the applicant, instead of keeping the present 4 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 cases or in other similar cases. 9. 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. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay