S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Neera Devi Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11301

¶3

NAFR

¶4

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI 2025.03.07 16:26:00 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CR No. 58 of 2025

¶7

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Officer, Branch Office, Second Floor, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar Road, Kranti Nagar, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Neera Devi Yadav W/o Late Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Post - Kirari, Amartal Para, Tehsil And District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827164038

¶11

2 - Vinay Yadav S/o Late Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 16 Years Through Mother Smt. Neera Devi Yadav W/o Late Rajkumar Yadav, R/o Village And Post - Kirari, Amartal Para, Tehsil And District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827164038

¶12

3 - Ku. Jaya Yadav D/o Late Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 10 Years Through Mother Smt. Neera Devi Yadav W/o Late Rajkumar Yadav, R/o Village And Post - Kirari, Amartal Para, Tehsil And District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827164038

¶13

4 - Ankit Yadav S/o Late Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Through Mother Smt. Neera Devi Yadav W/o Late Rajkumar Yadav, R/o Village And Post - Kirari, Amartal Para, Tehsil And DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827164038

¶14

5 - Rudra Kumar Shyam S/o Chamru Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 10, VillageKirari, Thana - Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Vehicle Driver And No. Cg-10/bg 7688) Engine No. Ha11eym4l05282, Chassis No. Mblhaw122m4l1161

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None.

¶18

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶19

Order on B oard

¶20

07.03.2025

¶21

Heard on IA No.2/2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition).

¶22

On due consideration, delay is condoned.

¶23

This Revision has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in MACT No.294/2024 by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby, the concerned Tribunal has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the respondent/claimant and condoned the delay caused in the filing the claim petition before it.

¶24

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. 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 proceeded in the matter. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter ignoring the delay caused in filing the claim petition, therefore, the claim petition itself is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending adjudication in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited

¶25

3

¶26

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 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Since the issue concerning delay in filing the Claim Petition under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory

¶30

4

¶31

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 not to pass final award in Claim Petition pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Supreme Court.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Ajay

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Neera Devi Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Neera Devi Yadav

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

Dashrath Satnami Vs Ghasiram And Ors.

Balchand Oswal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Savitri Bai Vs Priya Bai @ Priliya Bai

Digambar Gir Vs Keshar Prasad And Anr.

Shyamlal and Anr. Vs Kaushilya Bai and Ors.

Ambika Prasad Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh