1) The applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 78/2023, wherein, the application filed for dismissal of claim has been rejected.

2) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claim case was filed by the claimants after the expiry of 6 months, therefore, according to the provisions of 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim case was not competent. He further submitted that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur-Ramanujganj without assigning sufficient reason and without following the procedure contemplated under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act rejected the application.

3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the record placed on the record.

4) A perusal of the order dated 09.09.2024 would reveal that the deceased met with an accident on 10.04.2022 and the claim case was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 04.10.2023. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur-Ramanujganj has recorded a clear finding placing reliance on the matter of Akshay Raj Vs Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department reported in 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50 stated that even if the claim petition has been submitted after six months, it cannot be dismissed and requires sympathetic approach in favor of applicants and thus claim case declared maintainable.

5) This Court also in the matter of S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Shivkumar Binjhwar & Ors. passed in CR No. 145/2023 while dealing with similar issue discussing the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others reported in (2023) 4 SCC 381 held as under:-

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 51 has held that if the claimant fails to move any application under Sections 164 or 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 then the report submitted by the Investigating Officer according to the provisions of Section 159 of the M.V. Act, 1988 would be treated as an application for compensation and there would be no need to move a separate application.

16. In paragraph 62 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the claimant has not taken recourse to Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 within a time limit of six months, such miscellaneous application may be treated as an application under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Amendment Act, meaning thereby, if a claimant who has lodged an FIR at the concerned police station within a period of six months of the accident but he fails to move an application under Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act before the concerned Tribunal, his application moved under Section 166(2) may be treated as an application under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Act and it cannot be dismissed on account of the provisions of Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act but if no such report is lodged at the police station, the provisions of Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act can be exercised by the Learned Tribunal.

17. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent provisions to extend the benefit of compensation to the injured or the family members of the deceased person and on technical grounds, the benefit of such provision cannot be curtailed.

6) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed (supra) and the reasons recorded by the claims Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant Civil Revision.

7) Consequently, the instant Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.