IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3626 OF 2026 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022.

NOW REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO 5/4, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V.R ARCADE, Digitally signed by BINALAKALLI MAIN ROAD, VANAMALA BILEKAHALLI OF B.G.ROAD, N IIMB POST, BANGALORE-76.

Location:

HIGH …PETITIONER COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SIDDAPPA S/O SIDDARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

R/AT SANNAYYANAHATTI VILLAGE, NARAYANAGONDANAHALLI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

NOW R/AT TAGARANAHATTI VILLAGE, SIDDAPURA POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK.

2. SUCHINDRA D.S S/O SIRIYANNA, MAJOR, R/AT IUDP LAYOUT, 11^TH CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK, CHITRADURGA CITY.

…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 9/9/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT -V AT CHITRADURGA IN MVC NO 61/2024 AT ANNEXURE-G ON APPLICATION NO III FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) READ WITH 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE R/W SECTION 166(3) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AS PER ANNEXURE -E; ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO III FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) READ WITH 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE R/W SECTION 166(3) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AS PER THE ANNEXURE-E IN MVC NO 61/2024 AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IN MVC NO 61/2024 AT ANNEXURE-B FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 1 IS BARRED BY TIME AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

THIS 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.61/2024 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga [for short, 'the Tribunal']. If the claimant has 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] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 166[3] of the Act contending that the claim petition is not maintainable because it is filed beyond six months from the date of accident. The Tribunal, by the common impugned order dated

09.09.2025, has allowed the application filed by the claimant 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 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 AN/-