S.B.I. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs TULSA MANJHI

1


2026:CGHC:26267
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 69 of 2026
S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager 2nd Floor,
Shop No. 207-208, Rama Port, Main Road, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
(Non-Applicant No. 3)
... Applicant
versus
1 - Tulsa Manjhi W/o Late Amrit Lal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Devarghata,
Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
2 - Damini Manjhi Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Devarghata, Thana
Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
3 - Vedprakash Manjhi Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Mother Tulsa Manjhi,
W/o Late Amrit Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Devarghata, Thana
Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
4 - Komal Manjhi Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Tulsa Manjhi, W/o
Late Amrit Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn,
District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
5 - Naitik Manjhi Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Tulsa Manjhi, W/o
Late Amrit Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn,
District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
6 - Bhushan Manikpuri S/o Milau Das Manikpuri Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Ward No. 07, Badi Koni, Thana Koni, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle
No. C.G. 10 F.A. 7616)
7 - Kuldeep Prasad Kaushik S/o Raj Kumar Kaushik Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Sakri, Takhatpur, Thana Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of
Vehicle No. C.G. 10 F.A. 7616)
8 - Sukhlal Manjhi S/o Pardeshi Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Devarghata,
Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
BINI
PRADEEP
Date:
2026.06.29
17:11:02
+0530
BINI
PRADEEP

2
9 - Smt. Sahodara Manjhi W/o Sukhlal Manjhi Aged About 68 Years R/o Village
Devarghata, Thana Shivarinarayn, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 5, 8 & 9 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
29.06.2026
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents No.1 to
5/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (henceforth "Act 1988"), before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) (in brevity the "Claims Tribunal") on
01.11.2023 for grant of compensation in respect of accident occurred on
24.9.2022, which has been registered as MACT Case No.79/2025. Since the
claimants filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Act 1988 after
lapse of six months, i.e. one year six days from the date of the accident, the
applicant herein (Insurance Company) filed an application under Order 7 Rule
11 of the CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, however, the same
has been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the issue relating to the
applicability of the Limitation Act in applications filed under Section 166 of the
Act 1988 is currently pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. In a batch of related proceedings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed
that claim applications under Section 166 ought not be dismissed on the
grounds of limitation, rather, final orders should not be passed while the issue
of limitation remains pending before the Apex Court.

3
4. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays that, at this stage, this
revision may be disposed of with a direction to the learned Claims Tribunal to
proceed with the matter, provided that no final order be passed until the
adjudication of the issue by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
5. The grievance of the applicant herein is that even after lapse of one
year from the date of accident, the concerned Tribunal has registered the
motor accident claim case for hearing.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited v. Ayiti Navaneetha and others (Special Leave to
Appeal (C) Nos. 8412–8413/2023 and connected matters) vide order dated
04.11.2025, specifically observed that the Tribunals and the High Courts shall
not dismiss claim cases on the ground that such cases are barred by
limitation under 3 Section 166(3) of the Act 1988. The Similar issue is also
pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash
v. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166/2024). Thus, it
is explicit that the subject issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
7. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
considering the submission of the applicant, instead of keeping the present
revision pending, without entering into the merits of the case, the same is
disposed of directing the concerned Claims Tribunal to proceed in the
concerned claim case in accordance with law, however, no final order shall be
passed until the issue of limitation is finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the afore-cited cases or in other similar cases.
8. It is also observed that in the eventuality of any subsequent
development or authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in respect of the subject issue, it shall be open to either party to bring the

4
same to the notice of the concerned Tribunal, which shall thereafter proceed
to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and in consonance
with such pronouncement.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition
stands disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Bini