Disposed¶45

The Regional Manager Legal v. Ganesh K

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026WP/884/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Karnataka High Court; writ petition (GM-AC); Article 226; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; MVC No 5235/2024; VIII Additional Small Causes Judge; limitation; six months; belated claim petition; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; condonation of delay; maintainability; sub judice; Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023; Supreme Court; deferment of final judgment and award; adjudication on merits; Reliance General Insurance Company Limited; decided 09-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Tribunal directed to proceed with adjudication of the claim petition on merits, but restrained from pronouncing the final judgment and award pending the Supreme Court's decision in SLP(C) Nos. 8412-8413 of 2023 on the maintainability question. ¶45

The Regional Manager Legal Vs Ganesh K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 instituted beyond the prescribed six-month period can be entertained, by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. +1 more

¶32

Ratio / Principle

In view of the consistent view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches and the fact that the maintainability issue is sub judice before the Apex Court, the Court adopts the same course and directs the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition on merits.

¶42

Key takeaways

The Tribunal shall refrain from pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Supreme Court renders its decision in the pending Special Leave Petitions concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.ratio¶44
With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 884 of 2026 (GM-AC), decided 09-03-2026, Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. (Article 226): An insurer (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited) challenged the orders dated 10/7/2025 of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT at Bengaluru in MVC No 5235/2024, whereby the Tribunal continued adjudicating a motor accident claim petition instituted beyond the prescribed six-month period despite the insurer's limitation objection. The identical question — whether a belated claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay — is pending before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023. Adopting the consistent course of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court (which disposed of similar writ petitions while directing deferment of final judgments and awards), the writ petition was disposed of: the Tribunal was directed to proceed with adjudication on merits, but to refrain from pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Supreme Court authoritatively decides the maintainability issue.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13978 WP No. 884 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 884 OF 2026 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE REGIONAL MANAGER LEGAL, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28, M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

GANESH K, W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT LAKSHMI GIRUBHA G, W/O GANESH K, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶15

SRIPRANAV G L, S/O GANESH K, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT B102, 1ST FLOOR, RAMAI MAYURI PLATINUM MAHARSHIVIDYA MANDIR SCHOOL, CHINNAVEDAMPATTI VTC, COIMBATORE NORTH,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:13978 WP No. 884 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

COIMBATORE - 641 049. TAMILNADU.

¶21

HARISINGH, S/O NEG SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, 8TH CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGARA, MOODALAPALYA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 10/7/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT AT BENGALURU IN MVC NO 5235/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.V.C. No.5235/2024, whereby the Tribunal has proceeded with the adjudication of the claim petition notwithstanding the contention of the petitioner that the claim petition itself is barred by

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:13978 WP No. 884 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

limitation, having been instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner– Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding with the claim petition despite the admitted fact that the claim petition has been filed beyond the statutory period of six months. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the question relating to the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in such matters has been examined.

¶32

Having examined the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is informed that the very same question, namely, whether a belated claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13978 WP No. 884 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period, is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023. It is also brought to the notice of

¶36

this Court that in several similar matters, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, while taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have disposed of writ petitions with an observation that the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall not come in the way of the Tribunal proceeding with the adjudication of the claim petitions. However, the Tribunal has been directed to defer

¶37

the pronouncement of the final judgment and award until the issue regarding maintainability of such belated claim petitions is authoritatively decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶38

In the light of the consistent view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and bearing in mind that the issue concerning the maintainability of claim petitions

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:13978 WP No. 884 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

filed beyond the period of six months is presently sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the same course. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition on merits.

¶43

However, the Tribunal shall refrain from

¶44

pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Hon’ble Supreme Court renders its decision in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

¶45

With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶46

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶47

HDK

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The Regional Manager Legal v. Ganesh K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager Legal v. Ganesh K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivakumar G Vs Karnataka State Co. Operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd.

Ms.X Vs State of Karnataka

Kaveriyappa N T Vs the State of Karnataka by

Kaif Ullah Khan Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Surya Roadlines Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Prajwal .S Vs the State of Karnataka