##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:17546 Digitally NAFR signed by YOGESH

YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.04.17

18:02:45 +0530 CR No. 161 of 2025

Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Permanent Office At - Ward No. 25 (Guru Govind Singh Ward), Second Flor, Simran Towers, Pandri Road, In Front Of Lic

Office Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant versus

1 - Champa Bai Shriwas W/o Late Ramshankar Shriwas Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Hirri, Tehsil And Police Station- Masturi,

District- Bilaspur (C.G.)..........(Claimants)

2 - Yashwant Kumar Shriwas S/o Late Ramshankar Shriwas Aged About 8 Years (Minor, Represented By Monther Respondent No. 1) R/o Village And Post Hirri, Tehsil And Police Station- Masturi, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.).................(Claimant)

3 - Acche Ram Shriwas S/o Late Ramprasad Shriwas Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post Hirri, Tehsil And Police Station- Masturi,

District- Bilaspur (C.G.)............(Claimant)

4 - Chameli Bai Shriwas W/o Acche Ram Shriwas Aged About 68 Years R/o Village And Post Hirri, Tehsil And Police Station- Masturi, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.)........(Claimant)

5 - Indal Kumar Yadav S/o Shiv Kumar Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Pakaria (Jhulan), Police Station-Mulmula, District-

Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)..............(Driver)

6 - Balmukund Verma S/o Late Anek Ram Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Parsada (Raymond), 80/1 Nadiyapara Parsada, Police

Station-Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)........(Owner)

... Non-Applicants

2

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

17.04.2026

1. Ms. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

issue involved in the present civil revision has already been considered and decided by this Court in CR No.193/2025 and

analogous cases decided on 08.04.2026.

2. This Court while dismissing CR No.193/2025 and analogous

cases vide order dated 08.04.2026, observed as follows :

“1. Since a common question of law and fact arises for consideration in the present batch of civil revisions, all the matters were heard analogously

and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all these revisions, the applicants, comprising Insurance Companies as well as vehicle owners, have called in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in relation to claim petitions preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short, ‘M.V. Act’).

3. The core issue involved in all the cases pertains to the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the jurisdiction

of the Tribunal to condone such delay.

3

4. The facts, in brief, as obtaining in all the cases, are broadly similar and are therefore being noticed in a consolidated manner. In each of these cases, the claimants instituted applications under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained in motor accidents. However, the said claim petitions were filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act. Upon such filing, the present applicants/revisionists, i.e., the Insurance Companies and the vehicle owners, raised objections before the concerned Tribunals and preferred applications seeking rejection of the claim petitions on the ground that the same were barred

by limitation and thus not maintainable.

5. The respective Tribunals, however, declined to accept the objections raised by the revisionists and proceeded to entertain the claim petitions by condoning the delay in filing the same. While doing so, the Tribunals, in substance, invoked principles analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘Limitation Act’), and held that sufficient

cause had been shown for condonation of