The Manager Vs Shivakumar S L

THE MANAGER THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. D. NO. 7/432, P.C.A AND R.D. BANK, K.B. EXTENSION, LAWYER ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577001. NOW REP. BY, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 141, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560 043.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER RAMYA K.R., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT-1956

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17842 WP No. 10054 of 2026

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

AND:

¶16

SHIVAKUMAR S L S/O. LATE LOHITH KUMAR S.S., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. 102, SUNRISE APARTMENT BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE- 577002

¶17

SHASHANK B.S., S/O. SATHYASAI BABA B.J., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. R/O. 66, YARAVANAGATHIHALLI, KOLKUNTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 577502

¶18

THE GENERAL MANAGER, MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, HMJC ROAD, 36, JC ROAD, NEAR MINERVA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶19

THIPPESHI. T., S/O. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. R/O. SOMAGUDDU SCHOOL, JANATHA COLONY, CHALLAKERE- 577522.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 07-012026 PASSED ON IA NO. I COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17842 WP No. 10054 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE IN M.V.C. NO. 386/2024 AT ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.V.C.No.386/2024, whereby the Tribunal has proceeded with the adjudication of the claim petition notwithstanding the contention of the petitioner that the claim petition itself is barred by limitation, having been instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner– Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding with the claim petition despite the admitted fact that the claim petition has been

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17842 WP No. 10054 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

filed beyond the statutory period of six months. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the question relating to the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in such matters has been examined.

¶33

Having examined the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is informed that the very same question, namely, whether a belated claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period, is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in several similar matters, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, while taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17842 WP No. 10054 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Supreme Court, have disposed of writ petitions with an observation that the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall not come in the way of the Tribunal proceeding with the adjudication of the claim petitions. However, the Tribunal has been directed to defer the pronouncement of the final judgment and award until the issue regarding maintainability of such belated claim petitions is authoritatively decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶37

In the light of the consistent view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and bearing in mind that the issue concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the period of six months is presently sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the same course. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition on merits.

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17842 WP No. 10054 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

However, the Tribunal shall refrain from

¶41

pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Hon’ble Supreme Court renders its decision in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

¶42

With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶43

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶44

AMM

¶45

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6

The Manager v. Shivakumar S L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Shivakumar S L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Awab Adil Ahmed Mohamed @ Awab Vs Union of India

Chikmagalore District High School Vs Under Secretary to the Government- 3

Mr. Abdul Khader Vs the State of Karnataka

Paras Aneja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.N Monappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Thippaiah H @ Thipeswamy