RJAATGHVENDRADsRJA iA igg T nG iteH adl V by EyNDRA 2025:CGHC:58257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 277 of 2025

1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Chetan Kumar Deshlehre S/o Shri Hemchand Deshlehre Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Village Sodh, Post Office Sodh, Thana And Tehsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sohail Kumar Deshlehre S/o Chetan Kumar Deshlehre Aged About 11 Years Res No. 2 Is Minor Represented Through Its Natural Guardian Father Chetan Kumar Deshlehre, R/o Ward No. 4, Village Sodh, Post Office Sodh, Thana And Tehsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Purab Deshlehre S/o Chetan Kumar Deshlehre Aged About 8 Years Res No. 2 Is Minor Represented Through Its Natural Guardian Father Chetan Kumar Deshlehre, R/o Ward No. 4, Village Sodh, Post Office Sodh, Thana And Tehsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Triloki Sahu S/o Thansingh Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 30 Mahavir Chowk, Urla, Bmy Charoda, Thana Kumhari, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Kamlesh Kumar Goyal S/o Lakhanlal Goyal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 30, Harijan Para, Urla, Bmy Charoda, Thana Kumhari, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents : None (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

1/12/2025

1. The applicant / defendant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (C.G.) in case bearing No. MACT/50/2024 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has committed material irregularities and acted with patent illegality of grave magnitude in passing the impugned order dated 17.1.2025. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside/quashed by this Court in the interest of justice. It is submitted that rejection application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is completely without legal basis, as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self- contained code. It is submitted that the Tribunal exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. Nowhere under the Motor Vehicles Act is the Claims Tribunal empowered to condone delay in the filing of a claim under Section 166. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that it is a statutory body constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and is bound to function within the four corners of the statute. The Tribunal further erred in ignoring that the claim in the present case is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.04.2022. As per the amended provision, an application under Section 166 must be filed within 6 months from the date of the accident, and no claim application shall be entertained after this period. The use of the phrase "shall not be entertained" in the Amendment Act makes it abundantly clear that there is no scope for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period. The claim in the instant case was filed nearly 2 years and 9 months from the date of accident, and hence, is clearly barred by limitation. Moreover, the learned Tribunal also failed to consider the binding and persuasive precedents on the issue. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Santhi & Ors. Vs. Suresh & Anr., C.R.P. (P.D) No. 4066/2022, and the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Biju Mathew Vs. Suraj Mon. K. Shaji, 2022 (0) Supreme (Ker) 854, have categorically held that in cases where the accident occurred prior to 01.04.2022, claim applications must be filed within six months from the date the Amendment Act came into force. Both Courts have concluded that such applications, if filed beyond this period, cannot be ent