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. 27929 OF 2024 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

THE AUTHORISED MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.3/5, 2^ND FLOOR, S V R COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560068 NOW REP. BY THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 9^TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE 121, DICKENSON ROAD, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE)

VANAMALA N Location:

HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. PRAVEEN KUMAR M S/O MANJUNATHA K AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O R S UPPARAHATTI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 546

2. CHAMAN-SHA-VALI S/O HAZI BUDEN SAB AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MASQUE ROAD, B L GOWDA NAGARA, HIRIYUR TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599 3. RAVIKUMAR S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O R S UPPARAHATTY VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 546 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI.C.B.ABDUL SAB, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R.3 IS SERVED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-D DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA IN MVC NO.

327/2023 AND ETC.

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.327/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur [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 12.08.2024, 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 List No.: 4 Sl No.: 43