Chattisgarh High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance … vs Smt. Panchami Baghel on 22 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.04.23
10:29:28 +0530
2025:CGHC:18177
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 101 of 2025
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered
Office At ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near
Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai Maharashtra
Through Legal Manager - Deepak Soni, 33 Years S/o Late M.L.
Soni, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Sky
Park, In Front Of Bhatiya Hospital, Civil Lines, Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Insurer)
... Applicant
versus
1. Smt. Panchami Baghel W/o Late Budhram Baghel Aged About 55
Years R/o Village Matewada Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar C.G.
2. Kamalu Baghel S/o Late Budhram Baghel Aged About 47 Years
R/o Village Matewada Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar C.G.
3. Kawaldhar Baghel S/o Late Budhraag Baghel Aged About 36
Years R/o Village Matewada Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar C.G.
4. Surendra Kuhraami S/o Late Sukhram Kuhraami Aged About 27
Years R/o Village Bade Kilepal Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. Moti Mandavi S/o Shri Mangtu Mandavi Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Bade Kilepal Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District
Bastar Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
2
For Applicant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
22.04.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay.
2. On due consideration and finding the reasons assigned in the
application to be satisfactory, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of
26 days in filing the revision stands condoned.
3. This Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated
07.12.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, F.T.C., Bastar place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case
No.211/2023, whereby, the application preferred by the
applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section
151 of CPC, has been dismissed.
4. In this case, a claim application was filed before the Tribunal by
respondents 1 to 3 claiming compensation. The said application
was filed beyond the period of six months. Therefore, the
applicant/Insurance Company filed an application under Order 7
Rule 11 & Section 151 of CPC which was rejected by the Tribunal
vide impugned order dated 07.12.2024 against which the present
revision has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company submits that
as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a
limitation of six months for preferring a claim application and there
is no provision for condonation of delay or extension of time for
filing the Claim application. However, the Tribunal has proceeded
with the matter ignoring the delay caused in filing the claim
3
application, therefore, the claim application itself is not
maintainable.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending
adjudication in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in
Petition(s) in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of
the Insurance Company.
7. It is further submitted that the High Court of Kerala has also taken a
view in the matter of Akshay Raj vs. Ministry of Law and
Legislative Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50 that the matter is
condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged
before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023
which is pending consideration.
8. In the matter of Malrawan vs. Praveen Travels reported in 2023
SCC Online Madras 5467, the Madras High Court has taken a
view that in view of the provision contained under Section 159 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, once it is incumbent upon the Police to
forward the First Accident Report (FAR) and Detailed Accident
Report (DAR) to the Claims Tribunal, the said report can also be
treated to be a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 (4) of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, mere pendency of matters before
the Supreme Court concerning applicability of the Limitation Act
would not be a sufficient ground to interfere in the matter.
9. In the matter of Akshay Raj (supra), the Kerala High Court has
also considered the effect of Annexure XIII to Central Motor
Vehicles Rules as also the aspect of statutory liability to submit the
DAR.
10. Since the issue regarding delay in filing the Claim application under
Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory
4
requirement of submission of DAR before the Claims Tribunal by
the Police has been raised before the Supreme Court which is
pending adjudication, the present Revision is disposed of directing
the Claims Tribunal not to pass final award in the Claim application
pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively
by the Supreme Court.
11. The Tribunal is also directed to reconsider the claim application and
pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue which is pending
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link