IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10959 OF 2024 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO. 3/1, RUKMINI TOWERS PLATFORM ROAD, DIAGONALLY OPP TO MANTRIMALL SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 020 RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGER NOTE THE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956 MR. ANANDA .M (EMLPLOYEE ID 16106)

MACT AND LITIGATION CLAIMS EXECUTIVE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally 1. SMT JYOTHI signed by VANAMALA W/O LATE B.N. JAYACHANDRA N AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Location:

HIGH COURT OF 2. SRI. NITHESH KARNATAKA S/O LATE B.N. JAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

3. KUM. NIHARIKA D/O LATE B.N. JAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS MINOR RERPESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E RESPONDENT NO.1

4. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NANJAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS ALL ARE R/O AYYAPPASWAMY EXTENSION

2ND CROSS, HOSADURGA TOWN NOW R/O BASAVA LAYOUT, HOLALKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 526.

5. SRI. SYED NOORULLA S/O S.T. KAHJA PEERSAN AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT BASAVA LAYOUT, HOLALKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA (D) - 577526.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH N.R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-D DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT AT HOLALKERE ON IA-I FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC R/W SEC.166(3) (AMENDMENT ACT 2019) IN MVC NO.1148/2022; ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND HOLD THAT CLAIM PETITION AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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.1148/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Holalkere [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 08.01.2024, 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 nv