Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Kunti Gop

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CR No. 244 of 2025

¶5

1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, S-08 And 09, Second Floor, C.G. Plaza, Agrasen Chowk, Near Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Kunti Gop W/o Shri Hardayal Gop Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 52, Rajesh Video Gali, Thana Darri, Tehsil Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Amar Bahadur Pal S/o Purushottam Pal R/o Village Kanak Sarai, Post Kachua, Thana Kachua, Tehsil And Distt. Mirzapur, U.P. Currently R/o Village Rohini Bhadohi, Thana And Distt. Bhadoni, U.P.

¶11

3 - Vinay Kumar Pandey S/o Sharda Prasad Pandey R/o Mig 207, Kabir Nagar Gali, Phase 2, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶14

For Applicant :- Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate

¶15

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

05.01.2026

2

The applicant has filed this revision petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“9.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased call for the entire record in Claim Case No. 349/2024 before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G) for its kind perusal.

¶21

9.2 To set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 in Claim Case No. 349/2024 before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G)

¶22

9.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

¶23

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue involved in the revision petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CR No. 277 of 2025 (Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kunti Gop) decided by this Hon’ble Court on 01.12.2025. It is stated that the present revision petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:–

¶24

“5. Upon perusal of the revision petition, it appears that the accident occurred on

¶25

3

¶26

16.6.2021, at a time when the amendment to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act had not yet come into effect. The said amendment was incorporated only on 01.04.2022. The amended Section 166(3) reads as follows:

¶27

“166(3). No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident."

¶28

6. The core issue involved is the applicability and retrospective operation of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.04.2022. The accident in question occurred on 16.6.2021. The claim petition for compensation was filed on 2.3.2024, i.e., more than 2 years 9 months after the date of the accident. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on 01.04.2022. The amended Section 166(3) states that no claim application shall be entertained after six months from the date of the accident, explicitly removing thediscretionary power of the Tribunal to condone delay beyond this period. The language used, namely "shall not be entertained," clearly signals a statutory bar against filing delayed claims.

¶29

7. It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that unless a statute explicitly provides otherwise, amendments operate

¶30

4

¶31

prospectively and not retrospectively. In the present case, the accident occurred on 16.6.2021, well before the amendment came into force on 01.04.2022. The legal position governing limitation must be the one prevailing at the time of the accident, that is, the preamended provision which allowed condonation of delay up to six months beyond the initial sixmonth period. To hold otherwise and apply the amended provision retrospectively would be to deny a party the benefit of the law in force at the time of the accident. Such retrospective application would result in grave injustice and offend the principle of fairness.

¶32

Application of Judicial Precedents

¶33

8. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on decisions in the matter of Santhi & Ors. (Supra) Biju Mathew (Supra) where the Courts held that for accidents occurring prior to 01.04.2022, the limitation period as per the pre-amended law applies. In these cases, the Courts clarified that the six-month period for filing claims as per the amended Act cannot be applied retrospectively to bar claims arising before the enforcement date of amendment. These precedents reinforce the settled principle that the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.

¶34

9. The applican't brought to notice the pending case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard Vs. Ayiti & Others concerning

¶35

5

¶36

the interpretation of the Amendment Act. The Court recognizes thesignificance of this pending adjudication but cannot override settled principles of non-retrospectivity based on an unreported judgment. Till such time as the Supreme Court pronounces, the Court is bound by legislative mandate and judicial precedent.

¶37

10. Having considered the facts and law, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition.

¶38

11. The amendment came into force on 01.04.2022 and cannot be applied retrospectively to bar claims arising out of accidents prior to that date, including the present accident dated 16.6.2021. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction.

¶39

12. The revision petition filed by the applicant/defendant is hereby dismissed. The order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, rejecting the application filed by respondent, stands confirmed. ”

¶40

Since the grievance of the applicant is identical to the one considered in CR No. 277 of 2025 (Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kunti Gop) decided by this Hon’ble Court on 01.12.2025 , and the applicant in the present case is also

¶41

6

¶42

seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed

¶43

of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid judgment.

¶44

No order as to cost(s).

¶45

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶46

Vishakha

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Kunti Gop

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Kunti Gop

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

Bijendra Kumar Bani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sushila Verma

Vinod Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mulchand Thakur Vs National Mineral Development Corporation (Nmdc)

Shabir Ansari Vs Sunil Kumar Pandey