Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision disposed of; Claims Tribunal restrained from passing final award in the pending claim petition until the Section 166 (3) delay/DAR issues are conclusively decided by the Supreme Court, and directed to reconsider the delay application and pass a fresh order thereafter.

Issue for consideration

Whether a claim petition filed beyond the six-month period prescribed by Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable, i.e., whether the delay is condonable (interplay with Section 5 of the Limitation Act). +1 more

Court's answer

The Revision is disposed of with a direction that the Claims Tribunal shall not pass a final award in the pending claim petition until the issues of delay under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory submission of DAR by the Police are conclusively decided by the Supreme Court.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal is further directed to reconsider the insurer's delay application (Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) and pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue pending before the Supreme Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act — Claim petition filed beyond six-month period under Section 166 (3), MV Act, 1988 — Insurer's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on delay dismissed by MACT, Rajnandgaon on 23.11.2024 — Civil Revision disposed of by Single Judge (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) on 18.03.2025 — Question whether delay in filing claim petition under Section 166 (3) is condonable and whether the police-submitted DAR (Sections 159 and 166 (4), MV Act; Annexure XIII, Central Motor Vehicles Rules) can be treated as a claim petition is pending before the Supreme Court (Cholamandalam, SLP (C) No. 9152/2023, stay granted; Akshay Raj, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50, under challenge in SLP (C) Diary No. 23834/2023) — Held: Tribunal directed not to pass final award until those issues are conclusively decided by the Supreme Court, and to reconsider the delay application and pass a fresh order thereafter.

1

2025:CGHC:12726

NAFR

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.03.19 12:42:29 +0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CR No. 67 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, Aged 33 Years, 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 (Applicant/insurer) ... Applicant (s)

versus

Dasodiya Bai W/o Sonu Ram Netam Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Patekohra, Po Chichola, Tehsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/claimant)

... Respondent (s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

18.03.2025

1. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Claim Case No.97/2023 by the 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 with regard to delay, was dismissed.

2

2. 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. She 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 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.

3. 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

3

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.

4. 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.

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

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

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

Judge

Ajay