Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Order Date: 08 July 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Applicant – S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited (Branch Office, 4th Floor, Pujari Chambers, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, CG). Respondents – (1) Smt. Baisakhin Bai Markam (widow of Late Dashrath Markam, age ~56), (2) Ku. Dineshwari Markam (daughter of Late Dashrath Markam, age ~22, All Caste Gond, residing Barkai Chowki Dudhawa, Tehsil Sarona, Kanker), (3) Driver Chhatrapal Netam (son of Late Jangal Singh, age ~34, residing Kalmipara, Thana Dudhawa, Tehsil Sarona, Kanker), (4) Owner Umesh Kumar Markam (son of Sukhlal Markam, residing Kalmipara, Thana Dudhawa, Tehsil Sarona, Kanker).
- Legal Representatives: For Applicant – Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate; For Respondents – None.
- Background: The accident involving Late Dashrath Ram Markam occurred on 14 June 2025; he died on 17 June 2025. Claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 1 January 2026, seeking compensation and simultaneously filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone an 18‑day delay. The insurance company filed a revision under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation.
- Procedural History: The First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, dated 20 April 2026, allowed the claimants' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and rejected the insurer's application under Order 7 Rule 11. The insurer sought revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.
- Key Legal Points Discussed:
- The proposed Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 sought to insert a proviso after sub‑section (3) of Section 166, allowing the tribunal to entertain applications filed up to twelve months after the accident if sufficient cause is shown. The Gazette Notification for this amendment was dated 8 April 2026.
- The amendment has not been brought into force by any subsequent Central Government notification; therefore, it is not legally effective.
- Under the existing law, Section 166(3) bars claim applications filed after six months from the accident date. The claimants’ application was filed beyond this period.
- Supreme Court judgment in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha (SLA (C) Nos. 8412‑8413/2023, order dated 4 November 2025) held that tribunals and High Courts should not dismiss claim cases solely on the ground of limitation under Section 166(3).
- A related matter, Bhagirathi Dash vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.166/2024), is pending before the Supreme Court on the same issue.
- Court’s Reasoning: Given the Supreme Court’s observations and the pending apex‑court determinations, the High Court chose not to adjudicate the limitation issue presently. Instead, it directed the Claims Tribunal to proceed with the claim in accordance with law, reserving final orders until the Supreme Court resolves the limitation question.
Final Outcome
- The revision petition filed by S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited is disposed of without a merits decision.
- The First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, is directed to continue processing the claim case in line with applicable law.
- No final order on the limitation issue will be issued until the Supreme Court delivers a definitive ruling in the cited cases or similar matters.
- Any pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Topics: Motor Accident Claim, Limitation Law, Insurance