Disposed¶40

The Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Shobhakka

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2026WP/35115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (B M Shyam Prasad, J.), WP 35115/2025 (GM-AC), 29-01-2026: insurer challenges Tribunal order condoning delay (S.5, Limitation Act 1963) for belated S.166 MV Act claim in MVC 650/2023, Davanagere; maintainability plea via O.VII R.11[d]/S.151 CPC/S.166(3); disposal subject to SC interim order 16.12.2025 (judgments not finalized) pending SLP 8412-8413/2023 and WP(C) 166/2024.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petition was disposed of with the Tribunal's impugned order left subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings - the merits inquiry continuing, but the Tribunal refraining from pronouncing judgment and award pending the Supreme Court's decision. ¶40

The Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a belated claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be entertained with the delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - a question pending before the Supreme Court. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Given the Supreme Court's stipulation, this Court disposed of the petition observing that the Tribunal's impugned order will be subject to the outcome of the pending matters before the Supreme Court.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the disposal, the inquiry into the merits of the claim petition will continue before the Tribunal.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Tribunal is to refrain from pronouncing its judgment and award, so that the decision on the merits of the claim petition remains subject to the Supreme Court's decision on the question of entertaining a belated claim petition with delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the order dated 08.10.2025 of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere (MVC No.650/2023), whereby the claimants' application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was allowed and the insurer's Order VII Rule 11[d] / Section 151 CPC / Section 166(3) MV Act application contending that the Section 166 claim petition filed beyond six months from the accident was not maintainable was rejected. The High Court of Karnataka (B M Shyam Prasad, J.) noted that the question whether a belated claim petition can be entertained with delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.8412-8413/2023 and WP [Civil] No. 166/2024, and that the Supreme Court's interim order dated 16.12.2025 permits Tribunals to adjudicate such claims provided judgments are not finalized. The petition was disposed of with the Tribunal's impugned order made subject to the Supreme Court's eventual outcome: the merits inquiry continues, but the Tribunal must withhold its judgment and award.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4798 WP No. 35115 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. 35115 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DOOR NO.7/432, K.B. EXTENSION, KUVEMPU ROAD, DAVANAGERE. NOW REP. BY THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. NO.141, SRI. SHANTHI TOWER, 5^TH FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAMYA K R COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT - 1956

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

SMT. SHOBHAKKA, W/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. ANABUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:4798 WP No. 35115 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SHAHIR. T.@ SAMEER, S/O. LATE BUDEN SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. R/O. NIMBALAGERE VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT--583218

¶18

MALLIK SAB. H S/O. HUSSIAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. R/O. MARIKATTE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. - 577 528

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS W P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NO.III DATED 08-10-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE IN M.V.C.NO.650/2023 AT ANNEXURE - A.; B. DIRECTIONS TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT ON IA NO. 1 AT ANNEXURE -C IN M.V.C. NO. 650/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:4798 WP No. 35115 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is by the Insurer who is called 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.650/2023 on the file of the

¶28

I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. If the claimant has 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 08.10.2025, has allowed the application filed by the claimant rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:4798 WP No. 35115 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:4798 WP No. 35115 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

pronouncing its judgment and award so that the decision on the merit of the claim petition otherwise

¶38

will be subject to the Apex Court’s decision on the

¶39

afore question.

¶40