Chattisgarh High Court
Chola Ms General Insurance Company … vs Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav on 7 May, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.05.08
10:15:10 +0530
2025:CGHC:20858
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 126 of 2025
Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch
Manager Chola MS Company Limited Office- Near Vinayak Netralaya,
Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)
... Applicant
versus
1 - Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav W/o Shri Firat Lal Yadav Aged About 35
Years R/o Bhawani Mandir, Jogiyadera, Police Station- Balco, Tehsil
And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)
2 - Siya Ram Sindram S/o Prem Singh Sindram Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Banka, Police Station- Ratanpur District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. (Driver)
3 - Ram Niwas Sindram S/o Prem Singh Sindram Aged About 28 Years
R/o Village Banka, Police Station- Ratanpur District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. (Owner)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate
For Respondents : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
2
07.05.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
2. On due consideration and finding the reasons assigned in the
application to be satisfactory, I.A. No.02 is allowed and the delay of
6 days in filing the revision stands condoned.
3. Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2025 for grant of interim relief as also on
admission.
4. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated
10.01.2025 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. No.116/2023, whereby the
application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.
5. In the case, respondent No.1/claimant filed an application before
the Tribunal claiming compensation. The said application was filed
beyond the period of six months along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which was
allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant/Insurance
Company filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with
Section 151 CPC which was rejected by the Tribunal vide
impugned order dated 10.01.2025 against which the present
revision has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company submits that
the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable
to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. 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
3
ignoring the delay caused in filing the claim application, therefore,
the claim application itself is not maintainable.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending
adjudication in the case 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Consequently, I.A. No.01/2025 also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link