Chattisgarh High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance … vs Smt. Ramkali on 22 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.23
10:29:44 +0530
2025:CGHC:18178
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 102 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 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. Ramkali W/o Late Paras Mahilange Aged About 55 Years
R/o Village Muralidih, Police Station Mulmula District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Matachaura Chowk
Kududand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. Ms. Ranjita D/o Late Paras Mahilange Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Muralidih, Police Station Mulmula District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Matachaura Chowk Kududand
Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Ms. Chandni Mahilange D/o Late Chintaram Mahilange Aged
About 10 Years Minor Represented By Guardian Grandmother
Smt. Ramkali W/o Late Paras Mahilange Age 55 Years, R/o
Village Muralidih, Police Station Mulmula District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Matachaura Chowk Kududand
Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2
4. Ms. Chanchal Mahilange D/o Late Chintaram Mahilange Aged
About 7 Years Minor Represented By Guardian Grandmother Smt.
Ramkali W/o Late Paras Mahilange Age 55 Years, R/o Village
Muralidih, Police Station Mulmula District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Matachaura Chowk Kududand
Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Santosh Jaiswal Alias Buchun S/o Late Shri Sukhiram Jaiswal R/o
Chandipara At & P.S. Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
6. Vaibhav Verma S/o Shri Saras Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o
Chandipara At & P.S. Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
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
69 days in filing the revision stands condoned.
3. This Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated
23.10.2024 passed by 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.110/2023, whereby, the
application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company on the
point of limitation has been dismissed.
3
4. In this case, a claim application was filed before the Tribunal by
respondents 1 to 4 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. Vide
impugned order dated 23.10.2024, the said delay application was
allowed but the application filed by the applicant/Insurance
Company on the point of limitation was rejected against which the
present revision has been filed.
5. 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.
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
4
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
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