The Regional Manager Vs Ravikumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

The Regional Manager Vs Ravikumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the prayed-for reliefs (quashing of the impugned order; rejection of the claimants' Section 5 application) was granted; the petition was disposed of with the Tribunal's impugned order and the decision on the merits made subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether a belated claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed beyond six months from the date of accident, can be entertained with the delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

Court's answer

Under that arrangement the inquiry into the merits of the claim petition continues, but the decision on the merits will stand subject to the Supreme Court's decision on whether a belated claim petition can be entertained with delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of on the observation that the Tribunal's impugned order dated 19.09.2025 will be subject to the outcome in the matters pending before the Supreme Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-AC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the common order dated 19.09.2025 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Belur on IA No.I in MVC No.444/2024, whereby the claimants' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing their Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claim petition (filed beyond six months from the date of accident) was allowed and the insurer's application under Order VII Rule 11[d] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the petition as not maintainable was rejected. The question whether a belated claim petition can be entertained with delay condoned under Section 5 is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.8412-8413/2023 and WP [Civil] No. 166/2024; by interim order dated 16.12.2025 the Supreme Court observed that the pendency shall not come in the way of claim petitions being adjudicated by Tribunals, but with the stipulation that judgments shall not be finalized. Held (B M Shyam Prasad, J.): with that stipulation, the petition stands disposed of; the Tribunal's impugned order and the decision on the merits of the claim petition will be subject to the outcome before the Apex Court, the inquiry into the merits continuing meanwhile.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2573 WP No. 37183/2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 37183/2025 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

THE REGIONAL MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MAIN ROAD, NO. 3/5, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI, OFF. BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560076.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NOW REP. BY THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. LTD., NO.5/14, 3^RD FLOOR, SV ARCADE, BILIKALLALLI MAIN ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU - 560076. REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER. D. S. PRADEEP COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER INSURANCE ACT 1938. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAVIKUMAR S/O. ANNOJIRAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

KUM. VARSHA. R, D/O. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

KUM. GANAVI. R. D/O. RAVIKUMAR

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2573 WP No. 37183/2025

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS WILL BE REPRESENTED BY THEIR N/G I.E., RAVIKUMAR - 1^ST RESPONDENT

ALL ARE R/O. KALYANAPURA VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI, SAVASIHALLI POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573115

SHIVAGOWDA T.S. S/O. SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

SUDHA K.H., W/O. SHIVEGOWDA T.S. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

R4 AND R5 ARE R/O. TAGARE VILLAGE, BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573115 … RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NO. I DATED 19-09-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT BELUR IN M.V.C. NO.444/2024 AT ANNEXURE- A. B. BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS TO REJECT THE APPLICATION NO. 1 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.IL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 R/W SECTION

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2573 WP No. 37183/2025

HC-KAR

151 OF CPC AS ANNEXURE A IN M.V.C. NO. 444/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT BELUR AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

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.444/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur [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 contending that the petition because it is filed beyond six months from the date of accident

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2573 WP No. 37183/2025

HC-KAR

is not maintainable. The Tribunal, by the common impugned order dated 19.09.2025 has allowed the application filed by the claimants rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

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.

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

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2573 WP No. 37183/2025

HC-KAR

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 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.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 19