[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co.Ltd. ... vs Rinku Kumar Raikwar on 16 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13283
1 CR-649-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 649 of 2024
TATA A.I.G. GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE AT
PLOT NO. 165 A AND 166 ZONE 1 1ST FLOOR M.P.
Versus
RINKU KUMAR RAIKWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the Parties.
ORDER
The present Civil Revision has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the Order passed by the Claims Tribunal thereby condoning the
delay in filing the application for compensation arising out of Motor
accident.
2. This Court has already considered the issue in detail in
Miscellaneous Petition No.3848/2024 in the following manner:-
"Challenge in the present petitions is made to the Orders
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the
Claims Tribunal has condoned the delay caused in filing the Claim
application before the Tribunal.
2. The Order is assailed by the Insurance Companies on the
ground that as per Section 166 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
there is a limitation of six months for preferring the application for
claim and there is no provision for condonation of delay or
extension of time for filing the said claim application and
therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have condoned the
delay.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13283
2 CR-649-2024
3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Companies have stated
that the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Limited Versus Shreelakshmi T & Others in Petition(s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023, whereby the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the
Insurance Company. It is further submitted that earlier, the High
Court of Kerala had also taken a view that the delay is condonable
by an order in the case of Akshay Raj Vs. Ministry of Law and
Legislative Department 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50. However, the
said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in
SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 and the Supreme Court has
entertained the said petition which is pending consideration.
4. This Court was initially of the view that the High Court of
Madras in Malrawan Vs Praveen Travels reported in 2023 SCC
Online Madras 5467 has taken the view that looking to Section
159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, once it is incumbent upon the
police to forward the First Accident Report and Detailed Accident
Report to the Claims Tribunal and the said report can also be
treated to be a claim application in terms of Section 166 (4) of the
Motor Vehicles Act therefore, mere pendency of the matters
before the Supreme Court relating to applicability of Limitation
Act would not be sufficient ground to interfere in the matter. In
the present cases, the claim application has been filed before the
jurisdictional Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the accident took
place and the police authorities have not discharged the statutory
burden under Section 159 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 so also
clause 21 of Annexure XIII to Central Motor Vehicles Rules as
inserted vide notification dated 25.02.2022.
5. However, on perusal of the record of the case, it seems that
the Kerala High Court, in the case of Akshay Raj (supra) has also
considered the effect of Annexure XIII to Central Motor Vehicle
Rules so also the aspect of statutory liability to submit Detailed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13283
3 CR-649-2024
Accident Report (DAR). The specific finding in that regard is
given in para 21 by the Kerala High Court in the case of Akshay
Raj (supra).
6. In the aforesaid factual situation of the case, it is evident
that both the issues i.e, condonability of delay in filing claim
application under Section 166 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act so also
the aspect of manadatory requirement of submission of DAR
before the Claims Tribunal by the police has been raised before
the Apex Court as it was decided by Kerala High Court in Akshay
Raj (supra).
7. In view of the aforesaid, these petitions are disposed of
directing the concerned Claims Tribunal not to pass final award in
the Claim applications pending before the Tribunal till the
aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Apex Court in the
cases mentioned above. The decision that will be rendered by the
Apex Court in the aforesaid cases will also govern the issue of
condonability of delay in the present matters and the Claims
Tribunal shall be entitled to pass fresh order without the impugned
order coming in way.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the petitions are disposed of."
3. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered in S.L.P. (Civil)
No.8412-8413 on 04.11.2025 that the Courts and Claims Tribunal shall not
dismiss the Claim Petitions on the ground of limitation because the issue is
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. In view of the Order passed in M.P. No.3848/2024 and in view of
the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.11.2025, the present
Revision is disposed off directing the concerned Claims Tribunal to proceed
with Trial but not to pass final award in the claim application pending before
it till the issue of condonability of limitation is decided conclusively by the
Apex Court and the Claims Tribunal shall be under obligation to follow the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13283
4 CR-649-2024
said Order without the impugned Order dated 16.07.2024 coming in way of
the Tribunal, if it is held that the delay is not condonable. If it is held
otherwise, the Tribunal shall pass its final Award.
5. With the aforesaid direction, the Revision is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
