Disposed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. M Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/35306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, pending the Apex Court's decision on whether belated motor claims can be condoned under the Limitation Act, directed the Tribunal to continue inquiry into merits but refrain from passing final judgment or award.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal is directed to continue the inquiry into the merits of the claim but refrain from pronouncing any final judgment or award. The impugned order is subjected to the Apex Court's decision.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs M… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1436 WP No. 35306 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35306 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.293, SRI. SMK COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 11TH, A CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560 064.

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

NOW REP BY, THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO. 141,3RD MAIN ROAD, EAST OF N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560043 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAMYA.K.R. COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT - 1956

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:1436 WP No. 35306 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O M MUNIRATNAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT GOLAKUPAM VILLAGE, KATUPURAM POST, NAGIRI MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 517001

¶19

NEEMATHULLA B R S/O RAHAMTHULLA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WARD NO.2, AMBEDKAR BADAVANE CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NO.II DATED 08-102025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU IN M.V.C. NO.1379/2025 AT ANNEXURE - A; BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT ON IA NO. 1 AT ANNEXURE -C IN M.V.C. NO. 1379/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:1436 WP No. 35306 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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.1379/2025 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. If the claimant had 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 Section 166[3] of the Act contending that the claim petition is not

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:1436 WP No. 35306 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

allowed the application filed by the claimant rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:1436 WP No. 35306 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

inquiry into the merits of the claim petition will continue, but the Tribunal will refrain from pronouncing its judgment and award so that the decision on the merit of the claim petition otherwise will be subject to the Apex Court’s decision on the afore question.

¶39

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶41

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. M Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. M Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.Meghashree B.S.

Smt. Manjula M G Vs the Principal of Secretary

Sri.B. Haumanthapppa Vs Registrar of Society and Joint Director of Co. Operative Societies

Smt Sunandama Vs the State of Karnataka

The Branch Manager Vs Papanna

The Regional Manager Vs Mr.Imthiyaz Pasha