Branch Manager v. Ratilo Bai
Case brief
What is this about?
Chhattisgarh HC, Bilaspur, 08.04.2026 (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) — batch of 54 civil revisions (incl. CR No. 193 of 2025) by insurers (Shriram General, Cholamandalam MS, ICICI Lombard, Bajaj Allianz, SBI General, Tata AIG, Oriental, Magma/Megma HDI, Bharti Axa) and vehicle owners against MACT entertainment of claim petitions filed beyond Section 166(3) MV Act limitation. Keywords: limitation; condonation of delay; Section 166(3) MV Act; Section 5 Limitation Act principles; Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejection; maintainability; natural justice/hearing; Supreme Court interim directions; no final award restraint. Effect: non-interference in revision, claims to proceed but no final awards until Supreme Court decides (relying on ICICI Lombard v. Ayiti Navaneetha, SLP(C) 8412–8413/2023, ord. 04.11.2025; Bhagirathi Dash v. UOI, WP(C) 166/2024, ord. 19.03.2026). Citable only for the interim-position alignment with the Supreme Court; the Tribunal's power to condone delay under Section 166(3) is expressly left open — no settled rule on condonation emerges from this order.