Dismissed

SBI General Insurance Company v. Smt Meena Shandilya

Chhattisgarh HC13 Nov 2024WP227/1033/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order condoning a delay in filing a claim petition, the High Court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the insurer to seek constitutional challenge jurisdiction. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the claim under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Amendment Act based on Supreme Court directions in Gohar Mohammad, staying

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; directions issued to Tribunal to decide under Section 166(4) M.V. Amendment Act; proceedings in the present case stayed.

SBI General Insurance Company Vs Smt Meena… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 7

2024:CGHC:44592

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 1033 of 2024

¶6

1 – SBI General Insurance Company, Fourth Floor, Pujari Chamber Pachpendi Naka Dhamatari Road Raipur 492001 (Non Applicant No. 3)

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt Meena Shandilya D/o Late Bhaiya Lal Shandilya Aged About 50 Years

¶10

2 - Devendra Shandilya S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Shandilya Aged About 27 Years

¶11

3 - Krishna Pal Shandilya S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Shandilya Aged About 26 Years

¶12

4 - Kamesh Kumar S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Shandilya Aged About 24 Years

¶13

5 - Sukhbar S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Shandilya, Aged About 73 Years Respondent Number 1 to 5 R/o Akhrar, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2024.11.19 13:13:43 +0530

¶15

6 - Surendra Thakur S/o Hari Singh Thakur Aged About 41 Years R/o Ramnagar Kota Tahsil Kota District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Motor Vehicle Number CG10EK5529 - Driver) Non Applicant No. 1

¶16

2 / 7

¶17

7 - Rajesh Sahu S/o K.K. Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Firangipara Kota Tahsil Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Motor Vehicle Number CG10EK5529 Owner) Non. Applicant No. 2

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate

¶20

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶21

O rder on Board

¶22

14/11/2024

¶23

The petitioner in this petition seeks to assail the order dated 22.2.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (CG) in Claim Petition No.43/2023, whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the application preferred by the respondents-claimants for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and condoned the delay and rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC..

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the motor vehicular accident has occurred on 16.12.2022 and the claim petition was filed on 1.8.2023. He would submit that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been amended by Act 32 of 2019 and notified by enforcing w.e.f. 1.4.2022, whereby, sub-section (3) was inserted under Section 166 by virtue of Section 53 of the said amendment Act, which prescribes that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6 months of the date of occurrence of the

¶25

3 / 7

¶26

accident. He further submits that admittedly in the present case, the claim petition was preferred beyond six months exceeding the prescribed time limit in the aforesaid provision and there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. He further submits that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Akshay Raj V. Ministry of Law and Justice by the Kerala High Court, while passing the impugned order, however, the aforesaid judgment is subjudice before the Supreme Court in which, by way of an interim order, the effect and operation of the judgment passed in the aforesaid matter has been stayed. He would submit that High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, while dealing with the interlocutory application filed in WP Nos.1395 and 1396/2023, passed the order dated 6.3.2023, observing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be attracted and the said order was also challenged before the Supreme Court and the effect and operation of the said order was also stayed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8412-8413/2023. Lastly, learned counsel would further submit that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if any application is preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC afresh, the same shall be decided in accordance with law taking into consideration the order(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

Considering the nature of dispute, when a query has been put to Mr. Santosh Soni, learned Government Advocate for the State, he would submit that recently, a direction has been issued in the matter of

¶28

4 / 7

¶29

Gohar Mohammad Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others, (2023) 4 SCC 381, in which, it has been observed that the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report by the Police/Investigating OfÏcer forwarded under Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act as an application for compensation under the Act. He would further submit that Section 159 provides that the police ofÏcer shall, during the investigation, prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such form and manner, within three months and containing such particulars and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be prescribed and on receiving such FIR, the Claims Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register for recording Accident Information Reports received from Station House OfÏcers and register them as miscellaneous petitions under Section 166(4) of the said Act. If any application has been filed by the claimant under Section 166(1) of the Act, 1988, the same may be tagged with the DAR. He further submits that the detailed procedure has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in the above matter and para 54 to 56 of which read thus :

¶30

On filing FAR, if IAR/DAR is not complete, the time shall be fixed by the Claims Tribunal to complete the same and on completion, the date for appearance of the driver(s), owner(s), claimant(s) and eye witness(s) shall be fixed and they shall be produced by the Investigating OfÏcer on the date so fixed. It shall also be the duty of the Investigating OfÏcer to intimate the Nodal OfÏcer of the insurance company and also the insurance company to secure their presence on such date.

¶31

After lodging the FIR and on receipt of information by the insurance company, it would be the duty of the company to

¶32

5 / 7

¶33

appoint a Nodal OfÏcer and furnish the intimation to the state police, who shall coordinate with all stakeholders. On receiving the information through Nodal OfÏcer, the insurance company shall verify the claim up to the stage of filing the DAR. In case it is found that DAR is not correct, the Designated OfÏcer of the insurance company shall send a copy of the report of the surveyor/investigator to the Deputy Commissioner or equivalent ofÏcer of the Police Department or otherwise to carry out the purpose of Section 159.

¶34

The said ofÏcer shall make an offer to the claimant(s) for settlement before the Claims Tribunal, specifying the details of offer and submit the said proposal within 30 days of DAR in FormXI along with the report of the surveyor/investigator. On submitting such form, the claimant(s) may accept the offer of the insurance company or may reject the same. In case the offer is accepted, the Claims Tribunal shall take such offer on record and by the consent the claim be settled recording satisfaction that the compensation, as settled, is just and reasonable and pass an award in terms of such settlement. Prior to passing an award, it is open to the Tribunal to examine the claimant(s) for ascertaining their financial condition, owner(s), driver(s) and the insurer to submit their defence, if any to satisfy itself. In case the offer made by the Designated OfÏcer is not accepted by the claimant(s), rejecting such offer, the claimant(s) are required to file relevant material asking more amount of compensation for which the date of hearing shall be fixed by the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim on merit. After fixing the date and recording the evidence, if required, written submissions may be taken and thereafter Tribunal shall finally adjudicate and decide the claim.

¶35

Learned counsel for the State would further submit that in para 62 of the said judgment, it has been observed that if the claimant has not opted for taking recourse under Section 166(1) within the time limit of six months, such Miscellaneous Application may be treated as an application under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Amendment Act and be adjudicated in accordance with law. The aforesaid judgment has also been sent to the Registrar General of all High Courts and the Chief Secretary/Administrator of all the States/Union Territories for

¶36

6 / 7

¶37

implementation and to carry out the purpose of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act and the Rules made thereunder. Learned State Counsel would submit that he would bring the said judgment to the notice of the Chief Secretary of the State as also the Director General of Police ensuring about the necessary steps to be taken by the State for implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act. If any circular has already been issued, reminder shall be issued by the competent authority to all the necessary posted in the field.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶39

Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, the claim petition has been filed with delay and the learned Tribunal has also condoned the delay by allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act though the said issue is subjudice before the Supreme Court.

¶40

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and bring to the notice of the concerned Court the aforesaid developments. Meanwhile, the concerned Tribunal and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District shall ensure as to whether after lodging of the FIR, any information has been sent to the concerned Tribunal or not and also as to whether any information has been sent to the Insurance Company or not and in turn, the Insurance Company has appointed any Nodal OfÏcer on their behalf and further, any FAR/DAR has been filed or not. The concerned

¶41

7 / 7

¶42

Tribunal shall decide the subject application in view of the provisions contained under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Amendment Act .

¶43

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is directed that if any such application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC afresh, the trial Court shall decide the same in an expeditious manner.

¶44

It is also directed that till adjudication of such application, further proceeding before the trial Court in respect of the present case shall remain stayed.

¶45

10.With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed

¶46

of. Sd/-

¶47

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶48

Shyna

SBI General Insurance Company v. Smt Meena Shandilya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SBI General Insurance Company v. Smt Meena Shandilya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Smt. Anita Upadhyay Vs Smt. Vilay Laxmi

Heeralal Verma Vs Veena Agrawal

Monika Baghel Vs Praveen Singh Baghel

Punit Kumar Singh Vs Harihar Singh