Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager, Sbi General Insurance … vs Ku. Sandhya Nag on 30 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.05.01
10:38:07 +0530
2025:CGHC:19720
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 80 of 2025
Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Fourth Floor, Pujari
Chamber, Pachpendi Naka, Dhamtari Road, Raipur 492001
... Applicant
versus
1 - Ku. Sandhya Nag D/o Samalnath Nag Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Ganjnar, Tehsil Chindgarh, Thana Chindgarh, District- Sukma ( C.G. ).
2 - Hinga Ram Mandavi S/o Kosa Ram Mandavi Aged About 24 Years R/o
Udlatarai, Police Thana Chindgarh, District- Sukma (C.G.) (Vehicle
Number CG-26-J-0952 Registered Vehicle Driver)
3 - Tonde Oyami S/o Pide Oyami R/o Udlatarai, Police Thana Chindgarh,
District- Sukma (C.G.) (Vehicle Number CG-26-J-0952 Registered Vehicle
Owner)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. K. P. S. Gnadhi, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
30.04.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025 for grant of interim relief as also on
admission.
2
2. This Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated
03.03.2025 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
South Dantewada (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. No.63/2024, whereby, the
application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act has
been rejected.
3. In this case, a claim application was filed before the Tribunal by
respondent No.1 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. Therefore, the
applicant/Insurance Company filed an application under Order 7 Rule
11 of CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act which was
rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 03.03.2025
against which the present revision has been filed.
4. 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
ignoring the delay caused in filing the claim application, therefore, the
claim application itself is not maintainable.
5. 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.
6. 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
3
condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged before
the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 which is
pending consideration.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Since the issue regarding delay in filing the Claim application under
Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory
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.
10. 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.
11. Consequently, I.A. No.01/2025 also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link