Motor accident claim applications shall not be dismissed for limitation while the issue is pending before the Supreme Court.

The respondents (claimants) filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("Act 1988") on November 1, 2023, regarding an accident that occurred on September 24, 2022.

The applicant (Insurance Company) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, arguing the claim was barred by limitation as it was filed after a lapse of one year and six days from the accident date.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa, rejected the applicant’s objection.

The applicant filed this revision petition seeking a stay on final proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court on the applicability of limitation to Section 166 of the Act 1988.

1. Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should dismiss a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act 1988 on the grounds of limitation while the issue of the validity of such limitation is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

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

The interim directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Ayiti Navaneetha and others (SLP (C) Nos. 8412–8413/2023) and Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India and another (W.P. (Civil) No. 166/2024), which mandated that Tribunals and High Courts shall not dismiss claim cases on grounds of limitation under Section 166(3) while the matter is sub-judice before the Apex Court.

The Court observed that the core controversy—whether the limitation period introduced by the 2019 Amendment to the Act 1988 applies strictly—is currently under active consideration by the Supreme Court.

Following the precedent set in ICICI Lombard, the High Court determined that the Claims Tribunal was correct in not dismissing the case at the threshold.

However, to balance the interests of the parties and ensure judicial discipline, the Court reasoned that while the trial should proceed to prevent delay in evidence, a final adjudication (judgment) should be deferred until the Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling on the limitation issue.

The Court explicitly ordered that no final order (award) shall be passed until the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicates the issue of limitation in the cited pending cases.

The Court granted liberty to either party to move the Tribunal for appropriate orders should any subsequent authoritative pronouncement be issued by the Supreme Court.