Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kumari Sahara Banu

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:19125 WP No. 27838 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 27838 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TP HUB, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3^RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 043.

¶9

REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER.

¶10

COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

KUMARI SAHARA BANU D/O. M. FAIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS. SINCE THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IS MINOR WILL BE REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER I.E., SMT. SHABEENA. W/O. M. FAIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O. CHINNIGA JANNAPURA (V), MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 575 101

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19125 WP No. 27838 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MOHAMMED UMMAR,

¶19

S/O. LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. PRIYANKA LAYOUT, VIDYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶20

THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED UNIT NO.4, 9^TH FLOOR LEVEL 6, GOLDEN HEIGHT COMPLEX 59^TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3

¶23

(VAKALATH NOT FILED))

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 14-02-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE IN MVC NO. 30/2023 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19125 WP No. 27838 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The captioned writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudigere in M.V.C. No.30/2023, 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.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–

¶32

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

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19125 WP No. 27838 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19125 WP No. 27838 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

However, the Tribunal shall refrain from

¶43

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

¶44

prescribed period of limitation.

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:19125 WP No. 27838 of 2025

¶46