### Claim Petitions Cannot be Dismissed for Limitation Violating Section 166(3) Pending Supreme Court Guidance

On May 20, 2022, Ramprakash Yadav died after his motorcycle was hit by a negligently driven Scorpio (CG-13-Z-5967).

The claimants (widow, children, and parents) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on January 2, 2023, approximately seven months after the accident.

The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 16,99,000/-, contending that the claim was barred by the six-month limitation period under Section 166(3) and that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.

1. Whether the claim petition was maintainable despite being filed after the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Whether the Insurance Company established the non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

The court applied Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prescribes a six-month limitation for filing claim petitions.

However, the court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s interim directions in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors. (SLP(C) No. 8412-8413/2023), which directed that Tribunals and High Courts should not dismiss claim petitions on grounds of limitation under Section 166(3) during the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court.

Regarding the burden of proof, the court applied the principle that the party alleging non-involvement or breach of policy must lead evidence to substantiate such claims.

The court rejected the insurer's plea regarding the non-involvement of the vehicle, noting that while the FIR was registered on July 10, 2022, following a merg enquiry, the police had seized the vehicle and arrested the driver without any protest or counter-complaint from the owner or driver to superior authorities.

Furthermore, the Insurance Company failed to examine any witnesses to prove the alleged non-involvement.

Regarding the limitation period, the court acknowledged a 47-day delay beyond the six-month threshold.

However, following the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard, the court held that the delay could not be a ground for dismissal while the specific legal issue of limitation under the amended Act is under consideration by the Apex Court.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 16,99,000/- with 7% interest and dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.