Chattisgarh High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance … vs Uttam Prasad Pandey on 17 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.17
16:44:32 +0530
2025:CGHC:17621
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 98 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. Uttam Prasad Pandey S/o Lt. Pyare Lal Pandey, Aged About 73 Years
R/o Nursingganga Colony, Kharmora, PS - Civil Line Rampur, Korba,
Tehsil And Distt.- Korba, C.G. (Claimant)
2. Pooja Agrawal D/o Ganesh Agrawal Now Aged About 18 Years R/o
Near Shakuntala Clinic, Podibahar, PS- Civil Line Rampur, Korba,
Tehsil And Distt.- Korba, (C.G.)
3. Ganesh Kumar Agrawal R/o Near Shakuntala Clinic, Podibahar, PS-
Civil Line Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And Distt.- Korba, C.G. (Diver-Owner)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
2
17.04.2025
1. This Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 07.01.2025
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in Claim
Case No.3/2025, whereby, the application preferred by the
applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC with
regard to delay, has been dismissed.
2. 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. Vide impugned order
dated 07.01.2025, the said delay application was allowed but the
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the
applicant/Insurance Company was rejected against which the present
revision has been filed.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
3
Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 which is pending
consideration.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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