Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager vs Ku. Bhuneshwari Nag on 29 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.04.30
11:30:11 +0530
2025:CGHC:19436
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 81 of 2025
Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company, Fourth Floor,
Pujari Chamber, Pachpendi Naka, Dhamtari Road, Raipur,
492001
... Applicant
versus
1. Ku. Bhuneshwari Nag D/o Samnath Nag Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village Ganjnar, Tehsil Chindgarh, Thana Chindgarh, District
Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
2. Hinga Ram Mandavi S/o Kosa Ram Mandavi Aged About 24
Years R/o Udlatarai, Police Thana- Chindgarh, District Sukma,
Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle No. C.G.-26-J-0952 Registered Vehicle
Driver)
3. Tonde Oyami S/o Pide Oyami R/o Reddipal, R/o Udlatarai, Police
Thana- Chindgarh, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle No.
C.G.-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
2
29.04.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025 for grant of interim relief as also on
admission.
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.65/2024,
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,
3
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
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.
4
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