Disposed¶40

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

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/37533/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meghashree B.S. and others — Karnataka HC, Bengaluru, 06.01.2026, B M Shyam Prasad (single Judge), WP No. 37533 of 2025 (GM-AC); condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in MVC claim petition (MVC No.4692/2024); disposal deferred to Apex Court's pending WP [Civil] No.166/2024; Tribunal directed to continue adjudication without finalizing Judgment.

What did the court decide?

With the stipulation flowing from the Apex Court's interim order, the Tribunal's impugned order would be subject to the final outcome in the pending matters before the Apex Court. ¶40

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.Meghashree… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1066 WP No. 37533 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 37533 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.P.HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO COMPLEX NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G S MARULAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT.MEGHASHREE B.S. W/O LATE KUMAR B H AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶15

SHREYAS KUMAR S/O LATE KUMAR B.H AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶16

MARAPPA @ POOJAR MARAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1066 WP No. 37533 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

TOLASAMMA

¶21

W/O MARAPPA

¶22

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE R/AT ANNHAL VADDARAHATTI ANNEHAL, CHITRADURGA PIN-577555.

¶24

SRI. MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA S/O ABDUL ALEEM SAB, R/A HOLALKERE ROAD, MANDAKKI BATTI, 3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANX-D DTD 5.08.2025 PASSED BY XI ADDL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACJM MACT-12 BENGALURU ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT IN MVC NO. 4692/2024, DISMISS THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT FILED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANX-B AND HOLD THAT CLAIM PETITION AS PER ANX-A IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:1066 WP No. 37533 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This petition is by an Insurer calling in question the Order dated 05.08.2025 in MVC No.4692/2024

¶34

on the file of the XI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. The Tribunal, by this impugned order, has allowed the application filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act' ] condoning the delay in filing the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. G. S. Marulaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard in the light of the interim orders granted by the Apex Court in the writ petition in WP [Civil] No.166/2024 and connected matters.

¶35

It remains undisputed that the Apex Court, by its interim order dated 16.12.2025, has observed that pendency of the writ petitions/special leave petitions

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:1066 WP No. 37533 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

before it shall not come in the way of the claim petitions being adjudicated by the Tribunals but with the stipulation that the judgments shall not be finalized, and the Apex Court's order is in the light of the question whether the Tribunals could condone delay under Section 5 of the Act and entertain the claim petitions.

¶40

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 would be subject to the final outcome in the pending matters before the Apex Court, and this Court must next observe that the Tribunal must proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition but without passing Judgment. As such, the petition stands disposed of in the afore terms.

¶41

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶42

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Malamma Vs the Canara Bank

Sri. Natarajshastry Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri R Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Radhakrishna Urs H N Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chuna Rafi Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka