Telangana High Court
C.Madhavi Srilakshmi vs M.Sathyanarayana Raju on 21 November, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4136 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Sivalenka Prasad, learned counsel appearing for
M/s. Sivalenka Associates for the petitioner.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the docket order dated 22.09.2025
in M.V.O.P. (SR) No. 2017 of 2025.
3. The petitioner/claimant filed an application under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
"the M.V. Act") against the respondents seeking an amount of
Rs. 80 lakhs towards compensation on the ground that she met with
an accident on 17.11.2024. The said application was returned by
the learned Tribunal on 16.06.2025 with the following objection:-
"How the petition is maintainable as the limitation is beyond (6)
months from the date of accident.
Hence returned."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has resubmitted the
said bundle on 19.06.2025 with the following explanation:-
"In February itself came with FIR copy to file MVOP but CMO
at that time said bring me certified copies of FIR and
chargesheet but police not started Investigation to file the
chargesheet. I have filed a petition Crl.M.P.No.291/2025 on the
file of XV JMFC Cum JCJ at kukatpally filed on 21/03/205 and
heard on 26/03/2025. The Hon'ble Court has returned the
petition with remarks as "How this petition maintainable".
However upon request Hon'ble court has assured the oral
directions to KPHB police to file the charge sheet, then after one
week the police has filed chargesheet dated 10/04/2025, after
that again 1 and the complainant asked the police officials
whether the report is filed or not, they keep on saying already
filed it is under Scrutiny. Almost one month time lapsed, asked
the section people they said the file is missing, then I have filed
CA Application vide CA.NO: 2595/2025 on 08/05/2025 and we
got the Certified Copies on 23/05/2025.
Here the limitation of six months lapsed i.e., upto 17/05/2025
six months time is over.
Therefore it is submitted that the time consumed by the police
for filing chargesheet in the Case shall be excluded while
Computing period of limitation for filing claim petition.
In that case the claim petition is squarely within the time and
not bar by the limitation.
I rely on the Judgement passed by Hon'ble Orissa High Court
in W.P.(C).No.24028/2024 in paras 31& 32 - page No: 18
Para 21 - page No: 24
Para 23- page No: 25
Para 32-page No: 29
Para 33-page No: 30
Para 25-page No: 31
Para 28-page No: 32
Para 31-page No:33
Paras 32&33-Page No:34
I am attaching a copy of Judgement W.P (C) No. 24028/2024
and also a copy of Crl.MP. No.291/2025 for this Hon'ble court
kind perusal.
Hence objections are complied."
5. Thus, the petitioner sought registration of the said M.V.O.P.
filed by her and prayed for payment of compensation in accordance
with law.
6. The learned MACT-cum-III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Kukatpally, New Complex, returned the said bundle on
22.09.2025 with the following order:-
"Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. The
previous objection as to Limitation is still holds good. Hence,
petition is returned."
7. As discussed supra, it is the specific contention of the
petitioner that on the date of the accident her age was 55 years;
immediately after the accident, she went into depression and
underwent treatment. Therefore, she could not collect all the
documents. Thereafter, she has collected the necessary
information and documents. She has also filed an application under
Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 in FIR No. 1317 of 2024, on the
file of learned XV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-
cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, New Complex, seeking a
direction to the Investigating Officer in the said crime to complete
the investigation and file a charge sheet. The said application was
disposed of. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer, on completion
of the investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused.
Therefore, referring to Section 166(4) of the M.V. Act and the
principle laid down by the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in W.P.(C)
No. 24028 of 2024, learned counsel for the petitioner resubmitted
the bundle along with the above explanation. Without considering
the said explanation, the learned MACT returned the file, holding
that the previous objection as to limitation still holds good, and
accordingly returned the petition. The said order is impugned in the
present revision. Thus, there is no consideration of the aforesaid
explanation submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner or of
the principle laid down by the Orissa High Court in the above Writ
Petition and provisions of the M.V.Act.
8. It is apt to note that the Orissa High Court at Cuttack has
considered the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly
Section 166(4) of the Act. There is also a finding with regard to
limitation in terms of Section 166 of the MV Act and the effect of
the Limitation, etc. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
resubmitted the bundle with a detailed explanation, including the
C.A. number, relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment etc.,
the learned MACT did not consider those aspects.
9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 is not a
reasoned order passed without considering the explanation
submitted by the petitioner, including the aforesaid aspects and the
principle laid down by the Orissa High Court in the said Writ
Petition. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned MACT-cum-III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kukatpally, New Complex,
with a direction to consider the explanation submitted by the
petitioner, the principles laid down by the Orissa High Court at
Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 24028 of 2024, and the provisions of the
M.V. Act, more particularly Section 166(4), and pass a reasoned
order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
21.11.2025
sa
