##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14431 Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL

AGRAWAL Date:

2026.03.30

18:41:56 +0530 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 356 of 2026

1 - Pankaj Yadav S/o Shri Sadashiv Yadav Aged About 29 Years By Caste- Mahkul, R/o Village And Post Rengle, Thana And Tahsil-

Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg)

2 - Sadashiv Yadav S/o Shri Jaururam Yadav Aged About 60 Years By Caste- Mahkul, R/o Village And Post Rengle, Thana And Tahsil-

Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Akshat Agrawal S/o Shri Vikas Kumar Agrawal Aged About 20 Years By Caste- Agrawal, R/o Village - Bagicha, Thana And Tahsil- Bagicha,

District- Jashpur (Cg)

2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor, Galaxy Heights, Near Icici Bank Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Cg)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocat

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

25.03.2026

1. Heard.

2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, in MACT Case No. 16/2025, whereby the application filed by the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and the claim case filed against the Non- applicant No. 3/Insurance Company has been dismissed. By the impugned order, the petitioners have also challenged the order allowing the application filed by the claimant under Section 5 read with Section

12 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 1 is prosecuting a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the learned Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid MACT Case No. 16/2025 on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.03.2021 with the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. CG 11 AP 7897. The said offending vehicle was owned by the petitioner No. 2 and driven by petitioner No. 1. The accident was occurred on 03.03.2021, whereas the application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for compensation has been filed on 03.01.2025 which is much delayed from the date of accident that too after the six month of statutory period as has been

3

fixed in Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. He would also submit that the issue of limitation to file the claim application is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and till the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the issue of limitation for filing of the claim case, the proceeding of the present claim case before the learned Claim Tribunal may be stayed. He would also submit that allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 against the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company is also not justified on the ground that it is for the parties to lead the evidence with respect to their involvement and liability and at this stage, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be considered yet the Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company has been exonerated by dismissing the claim application against him by invoking the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the impugned order may be

set aside and the petition may be allowed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material annexed with the petition.

5. In the present petition, the petitioner have claimed two reliefs i.e. (1) the order allowing the application under Section 5 read with Section 12 of the Limitaion Act filed by the claimant and (2) allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the Non-applicant

No. 3/ Insurance Company.

6. With respect to allowing of the application under Section 5 read with Section 12 of Limitation Act, there is an amendment incorporated in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with effect from 01.04.2022 which provided that no application for compensation shall