Partly allowed¶44

The Branch Manager v. Srinivas D

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/11904/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

New India Insurance; writ of certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Section 166 MV Act; six-month limitation bar on motor accident claim petitions; deferment of reserved judgment; Apex Court interim order 16.12.2025; WP [Civil] No.166/2024; W.P.No.201961/2023; MACT Chitradurga; M.V.C.No.537/2023; writ petition allowed in part; B M Shyam Prasad, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tribunal (I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chitradurga) to defer pronouncement of judgment in the claim petition in M.V.C.No.537/2023 and keep the petition pending until the Apex Court disposes of W.P.No.[Civil] No.166/2024 and other matters or issues orders otherwise. ¶44

The Branch Manager Vs Srinivas D — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act filed beyond six months from the date of the accident is barred by law - a question pending before the Apex Court in WP [Civil] No.166/2024 and connected matters. +1 more

¶36

Ratio / Principle

If the Tribunal, which has reserved its judgment on the claim petition, were to pronounce judgment as scheduled, there would be a closure contrary to the Apex Court's directions and it would only result in multiplicity of proceedings.

¶37

Key takeaways

This Court must intervene and dispose of the petition by calling upon the Tribunal to defer pronouncement of judgment in the claim petition until there are specific directions by the Apex Court or disposal of the question pending before it.ratio¶37
Operative order: the petition is allowed in part - the Tribunal is called upon to defer pronouncement of judgment in the claim petition in M.V.C.No.537/2023 and keep the petition pending until disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No.[Civil] No.166/2024 and other matters by the Apex Court or orders otherwise by the Apex Court.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurer's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the rejection, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chitradurga, of its application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed on the premise that the Section 166 MV Act claim petition (M.V.C.No.537/2023) was barred because filed beyond six months from the accident. The Tribunal had rejected the application referring to this Court's orders in W.P.No.201961/2023 and had reserved the claim petition for judgment. Held: since the limitation question is pending before the Apex Court in WP [Civil] No.166/2024 and connected matters, and the Apex Court's interim order dated 16.12.2025 permits proceedings but prohibits any judgment, pronouncing the reserved judgment would contravene those directions and cause multiplicity of proceedings. Petition allowed in part: the Tribunal was called upon to defer pronouncement of judgment and keep the claim petition pending until disposal of the Apex Court matter or further orders.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1308 WP No. 11904 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11904 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LITD. BRANCH OFFICE, VIJAYASHREE BUILDING, B.D. ROAD, KCHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, II FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SMT. MANJULA NEMICHANDRA TEJASWI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRINIVAS D

¶17

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R.C. OWNER OF TATA LGV BEARING NO. KA-16-C-5754, R4/0 MATADAKURUBARAHATTI, TALUK AND DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:1308 WP No. 11904 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CHINNAPPA A

¶22

S/O ANTHONY, R.C. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. TN-55-BS-4317, R/O NO. 184, ARASADIPATTI,M, KUMMANKULAM POST, ALANGUDI TALUK, PUDUKKOTTAI VIDUTHI, TAMILNADU 622301

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC 537/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITRADURGA, AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SETTING SIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED 1 ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITRADURGA PASSED ON I.A.I IN MVC 537/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 28/5/2024, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER INSURANCE CO.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:1308 WP No. 11904 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This petition is by an Insurer, and the Insurer is aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2024 in M.V.C.No.537/2023 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga [for short, ' the Tribunal' ]. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected its application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act']. The petitioner has filed this application essentially in the premise that the claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act is barred by law because it is filed beyond six months from the date of the accident. The Tribunal has rejected this application referring to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.201961/2023.

¶32

Ms. Manjula N. Tejaswi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard, and the learned counsel does

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:1308 WP No. 11904 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

not dispute that the question whether a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act filed beyond six months from the date of the accident is pending before the Apex Court in WP [Civil] No.166/2024 and connected matters and that the Apex Court has granted interim order on 16.12.2025 stipulating that the proceedings could continue wherever application is filed beyond six months but there should not be any judgment.

¶37

If the Tribunal, which has reserved its judgment on the claim petition so filed were to pronounce its judgment as scheduled today [ i.e., 09.01.2026 ], there would be a closure contrary to the afore directions and would only result in multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, this Court must intervene to dispose of the petition calling upon the Tribunal to defer pronouncement of judgment in the claim petition until there are specific directions by the Apex Court,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:1308 WP No. 11904 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

or there is a disposal of the question pending before it.

¶42

At the stage, Ms. Manjula N. Tejaswi also submits that given the fact that the Tribunal has reserved the claimed petition for judgment, this Court may pass just orders enabling her/her counterpart to place on record the outcome in this petition. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed in part calling upon the Tribunal to defer pronouncement of judgment in the claim petition in M.V.C.No.537/2023 pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chitradurga, and keep the petition pending until the disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No.[Civil] No.166/2024 and other matters by the Apex Court or orders otherwise by the Apex Court.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1308 WP No. 11904 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The office is directed to upload the operative

¶49

portion of this order at the earliest.

¶50

SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51