##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19065 WP No. 26797 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 26797 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SHRIRM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,

EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, RAJASTANA STATE-560043.

NOW REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.5/4, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V.R ARCADE,

BINALAKALLI MAIN ROAD, BILEKAHALLI OF B.G.ROAD, IIMB POST, BANGALORE-76.

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

AND:

1. SMT REKHA K H W/O LATE RANGASWAMY, Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA

2. H.R.JEEVAN Location: HIGH S/O LATE RANGASWAMY COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

3. H.R.AISHWARIYA D/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.

2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS ARE MINOR REP BY MOTHER AND 1^ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.

ALL ARE R/AT HODIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19065 WP No. 26797 of 2025

HC-KAR

4. MADUSUDHANA.C.V S/O VENKATABOVI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT CHADAHALLI VILLAGE,

MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

5. MADHU.B S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KADARAKERE HOBLI,

MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-H THE ORDER DATED 16/7/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI IN MVC NO.769/2023 IS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3, WHICH IS NUMBERED AS IA NO.II AND FURTHER TRIBUNAL ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) READ WITH 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE R/W SECTION 166(3) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, WHICH IS

NUMBERED AS IA NO.III IN MVC NO.769/2023 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. In the above petition, the short question that arises for consideration is whether a claim petition filed under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable if instituted beyond a period of six months from the date of the

accident.

2. It is not in dispute that the said issue is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19065 WP No. 26797 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court in SLP Nos. 8412–8413/2023. By way of an interim order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions shall not preclude the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from proceeding with the adjudication of claim petitions; however, it has been expressly stipulated that final judgments shall not be

pronounced.

3. In view of the aforesaid development, and having regard to similar interim orders passed by this Court in connected matters, it is submitted that this petition may be disposed of with appropriate directions to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the matters, subject to the limitation

imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Having considered the submissions and the interim directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with

the following directions:

4.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petitions in all respects, including recording of evidence and hearing of

arguments;

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19065 WP No. 26797 of 2025

HC-KAR

4.2. However, the Tribunal shall not pronounce or draw up the final award in the said proceedings until further orders are passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 8412–8413/2023.

5. It is further clarified that the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Tribunal shall abide by the decision to be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions.

5.1. In the event the Hon’b