The court held that claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act should not be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation under Section 166(3) pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court, though final awards may be deferred until such determination.

Order on Board

1. The present civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 53/2025, whereby the application filed by the applicant/insurance company under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the claim petition has been rejected and, simultaneously, the application preferred by respondent No. 1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay has been allowed. The applicant contends that the said order is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory mandate.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 03.01.2024 in respect of an accident which allegedly occurred on 23.04.2022. Upon notice, the present applicant/insurance company entered appearance before the learned Tribunal and raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, specifically pleading that the claim petition was barred by limitation and thus liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is further the case of the applicant that the claimant, instead of meeting the legal objections raised, submitted a mechanical reply without addressing the statutory bar governing limitation. Simultaneously, the claimant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petition, which was also duly opposed by the applicant. The applicant consistently contended before the Tribunal that by virtue of the amended provision under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claim petition is required to be filed within six months from the date of the accident and that there exists no provision empowering the Tribunal to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite these specific objections, the learned Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 23.04.2025, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thereby permitting the claim petition to proceed. Being aggrieved by the said order, which goes to the root of jurisdiction and maintainability, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is ex facie illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error inasmuch as the Tribunal has exercised a power which is not vested in it under law. It is contended that the amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby sub-section (3) has been inserted, clearly mandates that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months from the date of occurrence of the accident. The said provision, having come into force with effect from 01.04.2022, squarely governs the present case, as the accident in question occurred thereafter. Learned counsel further submits that the statutory prescription of limitation under Section 166 (3) is absolute in nature and does not provide any scope for extension or condonation of delay. In absence of any enabling provision within the statu