Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sunita Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK

¶3

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.05.13 15:17:10 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:22135

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CR No. 230 of 2025

¶8

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered Office At Icici Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai Mh Thro' Legal Manager - Deepak Soni, 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.

¶9

--- Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Smt. Sunita Yadav W/o Late. Vinod Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ranigaon, Ps Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Siddharth Yadav, S/o Late Vinod Yadav, Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented By Respondent No. 1 Mother Smt. Sunita Yadav W/o Late Vinod Yadav R/o Ranigaon, Ps Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Loknath Yadav S/o Late Atmaram Aged About 59 Years R/o Ranigaon, Ps Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Parvati Yadav W/o Loknath Yadav, Aged About 57 Years R/o Ranigaon, Ps Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Aman Kashyap S/o Shri Maniram Kashyap, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ranigaon, Ps Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

6 - Aashiq Khan, S/o Mr. Mehtab Khan, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ranigaon, Ps Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

--- Respondents For applicant : Ms. Aditi Parakh, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Raja Sharma, Adv. For Respondents No. : Ms. Vasudha Shandilya, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Paras 1 to 4 Mani Sriwas, Adv

¶18

2

¶19

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

11/05/2026

Heard.

1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC”) has been preferred by applicant – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the order dated 107-2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in MACT Case No. 332 of 2023 whereby an application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as ‘MV Act’) and Rule 224 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules has been rejected.

¶24

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant / revisioner would submit that issue with regard to condoning the delay in filing the claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 is under consideration before the Apex Court.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded aforesaid submission made by counsel for the applicant.

¶26

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ayiti Navaneetha and others

¶28

3

¶29

{Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8412 – 8413 of 2023 and connected matters) , vide order dated 4.11.2025, has specifically observed that the Tribunals and High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground that such petitions are barred by limitation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

¶30

6. Taking note of the fact that the issue as to whether delay in filing the claim applications under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 may be condoned or not, is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, this Court, vide its order dated 10-9-2025, had stayed the further proceedings of MACT No. 332/2023, which is pending consideration before the Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid issue is also pending consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Dash Vs. Union of India and another (WPC No. 166 of 2024, vide order dated 19.03.2026).

¶31

7. Having considered the aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ayiti Navaneetha & others (supra) and the contention made by learned counsel for both the parties, this revision petition is disposed of directing the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the MACT Case No. 332 of 2023 (Sunita Yadav and ors. Vs. Aman Kashyap and ors.), however, no final award shall be passed.

¶32

4

¶33

8. It is observed that if there is any subsequent development or authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Governing the field, it shall be open to either party to bring the same to notice of the concerned Claims Tribunal, which shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and in consonance with such pronouncement.

¶34

9. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the civil revision stands disposed of.

¶35

10. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶38

Pathak

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sunita Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sunita 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

Gorelal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shweta Rani Kashyap Vs Manish Kumar Kashyap

Rahman Khan Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Nanak Traders Vs Axis Bank Ltd.

Babulal Vs Bhanumati

Deepak Kumar Xaxa Vs State of Chhattisgarh