Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

2024:CGHC:33018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 145 of 2023

1 - S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Raipur, 4th Floor, Pujari Chamber, Dhamtari Road, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant versus

1 - Shivkumar Binjhwar S/o Jagat Ram Binjhwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kerakachhar, Chowki Pantora, P.S. And Tahsil Baloda District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2 - Nilkamal Yadav S/o Chhatram Aged About 22 Years R/o Mudhali, Chowki Hardibazar, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Bolero No. Cg 12 Bf 5111)

3 - Ramsevak S/o Tularam Aged About 45 Years R/o Mudhali, Chowki Hardibazar, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.)

(Owner Of Vehicle Bolero No. Cg 12 Bf 5111)

... Respondents For Applicant : Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Non-applicant No.1 : Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/ State : Shri Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

29.08.2024

1) The facts of the present case are that non-applicant No.1/Shivkumar Binjhwar met with an accident on 20.07.2022 and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. As per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, his disability is more than 54%. The matter was reported to the Police Station Baloda on 23.07.2022 immediately after three days of the incident. The claimant/injured filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act after a lapse of 9 months and 2 days on 24.04.2023. Learned Tribunal issued notice to the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company appeared before the learned Tribunal and an application for rejection of the claim was moved on the ground that the claim case was not filed within a period of six months of the accident, therefore, the claim case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed according to provisions of Rule 224 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules.

2) Reply was not filed to the application moved by the Insurance Company and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.10.2023 rejected the application on the ground that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be decided without recording the evidence of the parties. It is further observed that the claim case under Rule 224 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 can be dismissed after recording the evidence if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to continue with the claim case. The Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal.

3) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/Insurance Company would argue that according to the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no application for compensation will be entertained unless the same is made within 6 months of the occurrence of the accident. He would further submit that the amendment came into force from 01.04.2022 and the accident took place on 20.07.2022. He would also submit that undisputedly the claim case was filed on 24.04.2023, after the expiry of six months, therefore, it was not maintainable. He further argued that the Tribunal had no authority of law to entertain such a claim case when there is no provision to condone the delay. He also argued that though an FIR was lodged by the injured according to the provisions of Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no Accident Information Report (AIR) was placed before the Tribunal. He stated that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the Insurance Company.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2023) 4 SCC 381

5) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for non-

applicant No.1 would oppose the submissions made by counsel f