Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
M/s Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Anil S/o Jagannath - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 202613 of 2024 (GM-CPC) C/w Writ Petition No. 202619 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 203335 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 203459 of 2024
Decided On : 13-08-2025
Key Points: - The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and its provisions should be applied beneficially to ensure justice for claimants (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing for condonation of delay (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Strict adherence to statutory timelines in claim petitions should not deprive claimants of relief due to technicalities (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Tribunal has the discretion to condone delays in filing claim petitions, even if filed beyond the six-month period stipulated in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (!) (!) . - The beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act allows for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, especially when administrative shortfalls occur (!) (!) . - The procedural flexibility in favor of claimants is affirmed, and writ petitions challenging the condonation of delay are deemed not maintainable (!) (!) . - The detailed procedures outlined in the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, for accident investigation and report submission, can render Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act redundant (!) (!) (!) . - A default by the jurisdictional police officer in filing the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) within the stipulated time should not be taken advantage of by the Insurance Company to deny compensation (!) (!) . - The Insurance Company, having collected premiums, cannot urge technical pleas like limitation when it has a fiduciary role to compensate the injured or deceased's family (!) . - Claim petitions filed beyond the six-month period should not be dismissed, as this would force claimants to approach Civil Courts, which was not the intention of the legislature (!) .
ORDER :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
The petitioners in each of the above matters are before this Court seeking following reliefs:
In W.P.No.202613/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.II by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Bidar in MVC No.252/2023 vide Annexure-E.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.202619/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 14.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.I & II, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur in MVC No.532/2023 vide Annexure-G & G1, and consequently allow I.A.-II filed by the petitioner rejection the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 & 2 as barred by the Limitation.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.203335/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 08.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.I & I.A.No.III, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Afzalpur in MVC no.1795/2023 vide Annexure-F.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.203459/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.5 by the IV-Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Vijayapura in MVC No.1411/2022 vide Annexure-F.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. In each of the above matters, respondent No.1/claimant in each of the above matters had filed a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V.Act’) for compensation arising out of an accident that had taken place.
3. In W.P.No.202613/2024, MVC No.252/2023 was filed by respondent No.1 as regards an accident which occurred on 03.10.2022 and the claim petition has been filed on 22.05.2023 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 50 days in filing the claim petition.
4. In W.P.No.202619/2024, MVC No.532/2023 was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as regards an accident which occurred on 16.04.2023 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of one month five days in filing the claim petition. In the said claim petition, petitioner- Insurance Company who was respondent No.3 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of of CPC to reject the claim petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation as per Section 166 (3) of the M.V.Act.
5. In W.P.No.203335/2024 respondent No.1 filed MVC No.1795/2023 as regards an accident which occurred on 22.06.2022 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 329 days in filing the claim petition. The petitioner-Insurance Company had filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 166 (3) of the M.V.Act, seeking rejection of the petition on the ground of delay.
6. In W.P.No.203459/2024 respondent No.1 had filed MVC No.1411/2022 as regards an accident occurred on 20.05.2022 and the said petition has been filed on 23.11.2022. In the said petition the petitioner-Insurance Company had filed application under Order 7 Rule of 11 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 166 (3) of the M.V.Act, seeking rejection of the claim petition as f
The Motor Vehicles Act mandates that its provisions be applied beneficially, allowing for the condonation of delay in claim petitions despite strict statutory timelines in the interest of delivering ....
Point of Law : Benefit under Act, cannot be taken away on a technical aspect that too of limitation, thus, the Trial Court having applied Section 5 of Limitation Act to the fact situation, Court do n....
The Motor Vehicles Act's amendment removing filing time limits for claims indicates that genuine cases should not be dismissed on procedural delays, reflecting Parliament's intent to support accident....
(1) Motor accident – After lodging FIR and on receipt of information by insurance company, it would be duty of company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish intimation to State police, who shall coo....
Benefit of amendment of Section 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby limitation for filing claim petition has been taken away is to be extended to cases where the dispute as to whether claim pe....
The Claims Tribunal cannot entertain claims filed more than six months after an accident, as dictated by Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring strict procedural compliance.
The non-notification of amendment provisions means prior statutes govern claim timelines, allowing the claim despite a dismissal for being time-barred.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurately understanding the enforcement of legal provisions and the impact of misconceptions on court decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
