##PAGE1##

1

NAFR Digitally RAGHVENDRAsigned by JAT RAGHVENDRA JAT

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CR No. 171 of 2024

1 - Ravi Kumar Makhija S/o Raj Kumar Makhija Aged About 42 Years Qwater No. D. 202/223, Sector (Wrongly Mentioned As Sexcater) 04, Saraswati School Ke Peeche Devendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur

(C.G.), (Owner) / (Non-Applicant)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Pushpa Buwal And Other W/o Late Hol Singh Bhuwal Aged About 58 Years Secater 03, Bhatti P.S. Police Lain Quater No. P.W.D. 128 Bhilai

District Durg (C.G.), (Claimants) / (Applicants).

2 - Bhupendra Kumar Bhuwal S/o Late Hol Singh Bhuwal Aged About 36 Years Secater 03, Bhatti, P.S. Police Lain Qwater No. P.W.D. 128

Bhilai District Durg (C.G.).

3 - Kamal Bhuwal S/o Late Hol Singh Bhuwal Aged About 34 Years Secater 03, Bhatti, P.S. Police Lain Qwater No. P.W.D. 128, Bhilai,

District Durg, (C.G.).

4 - Ramdulari Bhuwal S/o Late Ramratan Singh Bhuwal Aged About 85 Years Secater 03, Bhatti, P.S. Police Lain Qwater No. P.W.D. 128 Bhilai

District Durg (C.G.).

2

5 - Nitesh Alias Niteshwar Satnami And Other S/o Ahsok Kumar Aged About 22 Years Bhandara, P.S. Deori Tahsil Marribangala, District

Balod, (C.G.),...(Non-Applicants).

6 - C.G. Ato Keyar G.I. Road Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

... Respondent(s)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

16/04/2026

1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following

reliefs:-

“i. That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 26/07/2024 in МАСТ по. 16/2024 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

ii. That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the

petitioner safeguarding their interest.”

2. In the civil revision, the applicant, comprising owner, has called in

3

question the legality, propriety and correctness of the proceeding initiated and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- Balod in relation to claim petition preferred under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’).

3. The core issue involved in the case pertains to the maintainability

of claim petition filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation

and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to condone such delay.

4. The facts, in brief, as obtaining in the case, is broadly similar and

are therefore being noticed in a consolidated manner. In this civil revision, 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 petition were filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act. Upon such filing, the present applicant i.e., the owner, raised objection before the concerned Tribunal and preferred application seeking rejection of the claim petition on the ground that the same were barred by limitation and thus not

maintainable.

5. The concerned Tribunal, however, declined to accept the objection

raised by the applicant and proceeded to entertain the claim petition by condoning the delay in filing the same. While doing so, the Tribunal, 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

delay.

4

6. Consequently, the application preferred by the present applicant

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the claim petition came to be dismissed, giving rise to the present civil

revision.

7. The applicant has assailed the impugned order primarily on the

ground that the