IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,

BENCH AT INDORE

MP No. ………../2024 (Civil)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd. …PETITIONER

Vs.

Aarti and ors. …RESPONDENTS

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. Chronological dates of Events
2. Miscellaneous Petition under article 227 of the
Constitution of India on behalf of the Petitioner
along with affidavit
3. List of documents
4. ANNEXURE P – 1
Certified copy of impugned order through which
the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act was
decided
5. ANNEXURE P-2
Copy of Apex Court order dated 17/05/2023
6. ANNEXURE P-3
Copy of Claim Application filed before the
Tribunal
7. Vakalatnama

Indore, Submitted by
Dated:

(Counsel for petitioner)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MP No. ………../2024 (Civil)
IN THE MATTER OF:

Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd. …PETITIONER

Vs.

Aarti and ors. …RESPONDENTS

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE PARTICULARS
07.06.2022 Date of accident
13.10.2023 Impugned order passed through which delay in
filing application condoned
Hence, this Petition.

DATED: Submitted by
PLACE: INDORE

(Counsel for petitioner)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. NO. OF 2024 (Civil)

IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITIONER 1. Cholamandalam General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Address: 351A, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Main Road,
Vinayak Estate, Near American Opticals,
Indore
(M.P.)

RESPONDENTS 1. Aarti Dawar S/o Vijay Dawar

Age - 25 Years, Occupation – Housewife

2. Vijay Dawar S/o Chatar Singh Dawar

Age – 26 years, Occupation – Labourer
All R/o – Gram Sildaadh, Tehsil Nivaali,
Dist.- Badwani (M.P.)

3. Ritesh Dawar S/o Singa Dawar

R/o – Gram Sildadh, Tehsil – Nivaali, Dist. -
Badwani (M.P.)

4. Satish Dawar S/o Shantilal Dawar

R/o – Gram Sildadh, Tehsil Nivaali, Dist. –
Badwani (M.P.)

MISCELLENIOUOS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE AGAINST WHICH THE

PETITION IS MADE:
Order No: Proceeding order dated 13/10/2023 in MACC No.
109/2023 pending before MACT, Badwani
Date of order: 13/10/2023
 Passed by: 2nd ADJ, Distt. Badwani (M.P)

SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF:

Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article
227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner submits this
petition for quashing the order dated 13/10/2023, passed by
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the delay
occurred in filing of claim application which was filed in
violation of the limitation period mentioned in Section 166(3)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was condoned.

2. MATTER PENDING, IF ANY:

The Petitioner declares that no other matter is pending before
any other Court, Tribunal or Authority of law involving the
issues raised in the Petition, at the instance of the Petitioner,

3. DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED:

The Petitioner declares that there is no other efficacious
remedy available to him, except filing of the present Petition.
Impugned order is not appealable and revision is not
permitted against the impugned order.

4. DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE PETITION AND

EXPLAINATION THEREFORE:

The petitioner declares that till the date of filing of this

petition no delay has occurred on part of the petitioner in
filing this petition.
5. FACTS OF THE CASE:
5.1The Petitioner is a Public Limited Company which is involved
in the business of providing insurance solutions to individuals
and corporates.

5.2That, the Petitioner had provided insurance coverage against

third party liabilities for the vehicle truck bearing registration
no. MP-46-MW-9649. The said vehicle was registered in the
name of the Respondent no. 4 at the time of the accident.

5.3That, the Respondent no.1 filed a claim application making the

Petitioner and Respondent no.3 and 4 non-applicants to the
application and in pursuance MACC no. 95/2023 was registered
before the MACT.

5.4That, despite the mandatory provision enumerated in Section

166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act the said case was filed with a
delay of about 36 days.

5.5That, the claim application deserved to be returned in effect of

the provision u/s 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988,
however, contrary to that, the delay was condoned on
compassionate grounds. The tribunal has followed the judgment
of Akshay Vs Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative
Department and Others [OP (MAC) No. 6 of 2023] in
condoning the delay, however, the execution of this judgment
has been stayed by the Supreme court by order
 dated 17/05/2023 in SLP(C) No. 9152/2023. Thus, it was
erroneous on part of the tribunal to employ the aforesaid
judgment. The certified copy of the impugned proceeding order
is filed and marked as Annexure-P/1 and a copy of the order
passed by the Apex Court has been marked as Annexure-P/2.

5.6That, the order of the subordinate court is ultra vires as it is in

contravention of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and requires the urgent intervention of this Hon’ble court,
Hence, this petition on the following grounds: -

6. GROUNDS
6.1That, the impugned proceeding order of the tribunal is contrary
to the law. Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
enumerates that:
“(3) No application for compensation shall be
entertained unless it is made within six months of the
occurrence of the accident.”
6.2That, a perusal of the above sub-section, inserted by the Motor
Vehicles Amendment Act of 2019 and effective from
01/04/2022, would reveal that all applications for compensation
which are filed by the injured or the representatives of the
deceased or the agents of both U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 2019 must be filed within the duration of 6 months from the
date of the occurrence of the accident.
6.3That, in the instant case, as per the claim application and the
FIR, the accident occurred on 07/06/2022 and thus the limitation
to file the claim application was reached on 07/12/2022.
However, as the said application was filed on 12/01/2023 it
should have been returned by the tribunal.

6.4That, the tribunal below has improperly interpreted the sub-

section (3) of Section 166, above, by not considering the
mandatory nature of the law. The legislation has not intended
the law enumerated in the said section to be discretional,
nevertheless, the tribunal has condoned the delay without any
valid grounds.

6.5That, when the power of condoning the delay occurred by the

claimant in respect to the compliance of Section 166(3) has not
been granted to the tribunals by the Motor vehicles Act,1988
then, in the instant case, it was obligatory for the tribunal to
return the said claim application because it was filed with a
delay of about 36 days.

6.6That, Sub-section 3 of Section 166 was inserted by the Motor

Vehicles Amendment Act of 2019 to discourage the practice of
filing bogus applications before the tribunals and further to
decrease the load of the Tribunals. If this section is not given
effect, then such a worthwhile intention of the legislation shall
 get frustrated and the effect will have to be borne by genuine
litigants.

6.7That, other grounds shall also be urged at the time of final

arguments.
7. CAVEAT:
That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is
received.

8. INTERIM RELIEF:
The petitioner most respectfully prays that till the disposal of
this petition the Hon’ble court may be pleased to stay the legal
proceedings of the tribunal so as to save the present petition
from turning infructuous.
PRAYER
a. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case
and submissions made hereinabove, the Petitioner most
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set
aside the proceeding order dated 13/10/2023 (Annexure-P/1)
and directions may be issued to the concerned tribunal for the
returning of the said claim application.
b. Pass any other order that is required in the interest of equity
justice.
c. Award the cost of the litigation to the petitioner.
Indore, Submitted by
Dated :

(Counsel for petitioner)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MP No. ………../2024 (Civil)
IN THE MATTER OF:

Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd. …PETITIONER

Vs.

Aarti and ors. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

1. I Swear on oath that :-

My name :
Father’s name :
Age :
Occupation :
Address :
2. That, I am Petitioner in above petition and I have filed the
miscellaneous petition under article 227 of the constitution of
India and contents of this petition from Para 01 to end are
true to best of my personal knowledge and belief, nothing
untrue has been stated therein and nothing has been
concealed.

Indore
Dated ...................... Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, to hereby verify on oath that

the contents of para 1 and 2 of above affidavit, are true to best of
my knowledge and belief. Nothing stated therein is above is untrue
nor have I concealed any facts there from.

Indore
Dated ...................... Deponent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,

BENCH AT INDORE

MP No. ………../2024 (Civil)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd. …PETITIONER

Vs.
Aarti and ors. …RESPONDENTS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. ANNEXURE P – 1
Certified copy of impugned order through which
the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act was
decided
2. ANNEXURE P-2
Copy of Apex Court order dated 17/05/2023
3. ANNEXURE P-3
Copy of Claim Application filed before the
Tribunal

Indore, Submitted by
Dated:

(Counsel for petitioner)