The Manager, Vs Sri Sathisha K

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

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER NARENDRA.S (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT-1956)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI SATHISHA K AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. JAYARAMA ACHARY,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17843 WP No. 10075 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

R/O. H. NO.1-47-B, SHRI DHAMA, BADAHOLI, KARKALA VILLAGE AND POST, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI.

¶19

SRI. UDAYA POOJARY, S/O. KANTHAPPA POOJARY, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, SUPI MANSION, GOGLE MARG, OPP. GUJARATHI SAMAJA, SOUTH GOA

¶20

PURANDARA S. SHETTY, S/O. LATE SHYAMA SHETTY, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O. 4-172B, ANANTHAPADMANABHA NILAYA, MOODABETTU, HERANJE CROSS, CHANTHAR VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 04.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 1 COURT OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT UDUPI IN MVC NO. 1032/2024 AT ANNX-A., AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:17843 WP No. 10075 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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.1032/2024, 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.

¶30

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 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

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:17843 WP No. 10075 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in such matters has been examined.

¶35

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

¶36

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 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

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17843 WP No. 10075 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

However, the Tribunal shall refrain from

¶42

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

¶43

prescribed period of limitation.

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:17843 WP No. 10075 of 2026

¶45