The Manager v. v O Thippeswamy

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/19916/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability/limitation under S.166(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — claim petition filed beyond six months from accident; MACT/Court below may proceed with trial (evidence and arguments) but final award withheld pending Supreme Court decision in SLP Nos.8412–8413/2023; conditional directions if maintainability upheld or rejected; MVC No. 548/2025 Chitradurga; IA No. III orders dated 29-01-2026; certiorari under Articles 226 & 227; writ disposed by Suraj Govindaraj, J. on 08-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petitions in all respects, including recording of evidence and hearing of arguments, notwithstanding the pendency of SLP Nos.8412–8413/2023 before the Supreme Court. ¶4.1

The Manager Vs v O Thippeswamy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a claim petition filed under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable if instituted beyond a period of six months from the date of the accident.

¶¶28

Court's answer

¶4.1

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal shall not pronounce or draw up the final award in the proceedings until further orders are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 8412–8413/2023.

¶4.2

Key takeaways

The ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Tribunal shall abide by the decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions.ratio¶5
If the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that claim petitions filed beyond six months from the date of the accident are maintainable, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed to pronounce and draw up the final award in accordance with law.ratio¶5.1

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (certiorari) by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking to quash orders dated 29-01-2026 passed on IA No. III by the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in M.V.C. No. 548/2025. The underlying question — whether a claim petition under Section 166(3), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable when instituted beyond six months from the accident — was NOT decided by this Court: it is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.8412–8413/2023, whose interim order permits Tribunals to continue adjudication but bars pronouncement of final judgments. Following similar interim orders in connected matters, the High Court (Suraj Govindaraj, J.) disposed of the writ with directions: the Tribunal may proceed with recording of evidence and hearing of arguments, but shall not pronounce or draw up the final award until further orders of the Supreme Court; the outcome shall abide by the Supreme Court's decision — if such delayed claim petitions are held maintainable, the Tribunal may render the final award, otherwise it shall pass orders in conformity with the law so declared.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34402 WP No. 19916 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.19916 OF 2026 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GEN, CO, LTD,. 1^ST FLOOR ABOVE THE BANK, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577501. NOW REP. BY THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. NEAR 4TH FLOOR, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 141, 3RD MAIN ROAD, KASTURI NAGAR, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043. Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA RAMYA.K.R. Location: HIGH (COMPANY REGISTERED COURT OF KARNATAKA UNDER COMPANY ACT-1956)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

V O THIPPESWAMY S/O. VARAVINA OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34402 WP No. 19916 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

R/AT HOCHI BORAIAH BADAVANE, BACHABORANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST-577501.

¶17

SURESH.B.L, S/O. LATE LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. GURU KARUNYA, METRO QUARTERS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560021

¶18

THE MANAGER,

¶19

ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., UNIT NO. 301, 3^RD FLOOR, LOTUS CORPORATE PARK, GORAGAN (E), MUMBAI-400063.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 29-01-2026 PASSED ON IA NO. III BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. CHITRADURGA IN M.V.C. NO. 548/2025 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:34402 WP No. 19916 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In the above petition, the short question that arises for consideration is whether a claim petition filed under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable if instituted beyond a period of six months from the date of the accident.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the said issue is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.8412–8413/2023. By way of an interim order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions shall not preclude the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from proceeding with the adjudication of claim petitions; however, it has been expressly stipulated that final judgments shall not be pronounced.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid development, and having regard to similar interim orders passed by this Court in connected matters, it is submitted that this petition may be disposed of with appropriate directions to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the matters, subject to the limitation imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:34402 WP No. 19916 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Having considered the submissions and the interim directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with the following directions:

¶35

4.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petitions in all respects, including recording of evidence and hearing of arguments;

¶36

4.2. However, the Tribunal shall not pronounce or draw up the final award in the said proceedings until further orders are passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 8412–8413/2023.

¶37

It is further clarified that the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Tribunal shall abide by the decision to be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions.

¶38

5.1. In the event the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that claim petitions filed beyond the period of six months from the date of the accident are maintainable, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed to pronounce and draw up the final award in accordance with law;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:34402 WP No. 19916 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

5.2. Conversely, if it is held that such claim petitions are not maintainable, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in conformity with the law so declared.

¶43

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed .

¶44

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

The Manager v. v O Thippeswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. v O Thippeswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sharath @ Sharath Kumar, Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Sharon. D. Vs the State of Karnataka

Subramanya Educational Soceity, (East-West College) Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority (Gba)

Sri M J Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Resona Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Muddasir

M/S Dynamic Enterprises Vs Union of India