Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Janturam Harro

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10674

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CR No. 51 of 2025

¶6

Digitally signed byAVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.05 17:38:18 +0530

¶7

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered OfÏce At Icici Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai Mh Thro. Legal Manager- Deepak Soni, Aged 33 Yrs., S/o Late M.L. Soni, Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Sky Park, In Front Of Bhatiya Hospital, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. (Applicant/insurer)

¶8

... Applicant.

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Janturam Harro S/o Ramji Ram Harro Aged About 25 Years R/o Vill.Dhabbha, Ps / Teh.- Manpur Distt.- Mohla-Manpur - An. Chowki C.G. (Respondents / Claimants).

¶11

2 - Anwar Ali S/o Wahajuddin Aged About 30 Years R/o Vill. Dhema, Po Narayanganj, Ps- Mandhata, Tah. And Distt.- Pratapgarh Up.

¶12

3 - Jain Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd. Address - Near Asthabhuja Temple, Bypass Road Raitwari Colony, Chandrapur (Maharashtra) 442401 (Respondent/driver-Owner)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Applicant : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate through V.C.

¶15

2

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶17

05/03/2025

¶18

This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in MA Case No.132/2023 by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed and the learned Claims Tribunal has condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim Petition before it.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter by allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not maintainable. He submits that as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a limitation of six months for preferring a Claim Petition and there is no provision for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing the said Claim Petition. Hence, the Tribunal should not have condoned the delay. 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) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the Insurance Company. 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

¶20

3

¶21

condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 and the said matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

¶22

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 sufÏcient ground to interfere in the matter.

¶23

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.

¶24

Since the issue concerning delay in filing the Claim Petition 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 was decided by the Kerala High Court in Akshay Raj (supra), the present Revision is disposed of directing the Claims Tribunal concerned not to pass final award in Claim Petitions pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Supreme Court.

¶25

4

¶26

The Tribunal is further directed to reconsider the application and pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue, which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Avinash

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Janturam Harro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Janturam Harro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Motor Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raju Kashyap

M/S S K Builders and Developers Vs Ajay Kumar

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kekti Dhruv

Union of India Vs M/s Orissa Concrete And Allied Ind Ltd.

Karan Das Mahant Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Kumar Sundrani Vs Union of India