The Branch Manager Vs Asma Banu

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4797 WP No. 32606 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32606 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., IRDAI, REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, HDFC HOUSE, 165/166 BACKBAY, RECLAMATION, HT PAREKH MARG, CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI-400020.

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

NOW REP. BY THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., NO. 25/1, 2^ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.1, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER. COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ASMA BANU

¶15

W/O. IMTHIYAZ AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶16

IMTHIYAZ AHAMED, S/O. SHAOUKATH ALI,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:4797 WP No. 32606 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶21

NIHAL AHAMED, S/O. IMTHIYAZ AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶22

RIMAZ AHAMED S/O. IMTHIYAZ AHAMED AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.

¶23

RUMAN AHAMED, S/O. IMTHIYAZ AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶24

R4 AND R5 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR FATHER NO.2 IMTHIYAZ AHAMED,

¶25

ALL ARE R/O. NO.1-380/1, NEAR HALEKKI KERE, PULKERI, SANOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶26

ROHITH KOTIAN, S/O SANKAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT PARARI SANKAMANE, VAMANJOOR, THIRUVAILU VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574142.

¶27

JAGADISH, S/O. SANKAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PARARI SANKAMANE, VAMANJOOR, THIRUVAILU VILLAGE

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:4797 WP No. 32606 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574142.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS W P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NOS.1 AND 2 DATED 25.06.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KARKALA IN MVC NO.131/2025 AT ANNX-A.; B. DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND SECTION 166(3) OF THE MV ACT AT ANNX-C IN MVC NO. 131/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KARKALA AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:4797 WP No. 32606 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

This petition is by the Insurer who is called

¶41

upon to answer a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the Act' ] in the claim petition in MVC No.131/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. If the claimants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of the delay in filing the claim petition, the petitioner has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11[d] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 166[3] of the Act contending that the claim petition is not maintainable because it is filed beyond six months from the date of accident. The Tribunal, by the common impugned order dated 25.06.2025, has allowed the application filed by the claimants rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:4797 WP No. 32606 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The question: whether a belated claim petition could be entertained condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is pending with the Apex Court in SLP Nos.8412-8413/2023 and similar matters in the writ petition in WP [Civil] No. 166/2024 and connected matters. It remains undisputed that the Apex Court by its interim order dated 16.12.2025 has observed that the pendency of the writ petitions/special leave petitions before it shall not come in the way of the claim petitions being adjudicated by the Tribunals but with the stipulation that judgments shall not be finalized.

¶46

This Court is of the considered view that with the afore-stipulation, this petition must be disposed of observing that the Tribunal's impugned order will be subject to the outcome in the pending matters before the Apex Court. With this arrangement, the inquiry into the merits of the claim petition will continue, but the Tribunal will refrain from

¶47