Limitation Period Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act: Karnataka HC Restrains Final Orders Pending Apex Court Verdict - 2026-03-25

Navigating Legal Uncertainty: Karnataka High Court Addresses Limitation Hurdles in Motor Accident Claims

In a significant procedural move, the High Court of Karnataka has provided clarity regarding the ongoing dispute over the limitation period for filing claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA). Addressing a writ petition filed by S.B.I. General Insurance, the Court has directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to continue the adjudication process while pausing the delivery of final awards, pending the outcome of constitutional matters currently before the Supreme Court.

The Backdrop: A Battle Over Time Limits

The genesis of the dispute lies in a claim petition filed before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga. The petitioner, S.B.I. General Insurance, sought the dismissal of the claim, arguing that the petition was time-barred as it was filed beyond the six-month limit stipulated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal had previously dismissed the insurer’s application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decision that eventually reached the High Court. The core legal question involves the interpretation of whether the strict timelines imposed by the amended Motor Vehicles Act should override the right of victims to seek compensation.

Judicial Strategy: Proceeding with Caution

Justice B M Shyam Prasad, presiding over the High Court, noted that the validity of these time constraints is currently a live issue before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.8412-8413/2023 and related matters.

Recognizing that delaying the entire judicial process would cause undue hardship to accident victims, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach. It allowed the Tribunal to conduct inquiries and gather evidence, ensuring that the wheels of justice continue to turn despite higher-level uncertainty. However, the Court imposed a strict safeguard: the Tribunal is to refrain from pronouncing final judgments or awarding compensation until the Apex Court provides a definitive ruling.

Key Observations

The High Court’s reasoning emphasizes the importance of balancing administrative certainty with procedural fairness:

• On the Apex Court Stay: "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."
• On the Procedural Safeguard: "This Court is of the considered view that [...] 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."
• On the Judicial Process: "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."

Implications for Future Claims

This directive effectively freezes the final resolution of numerous accident claims across the state while allowing them to remain active in the court system. For legal practitioners, this confirms that while technical arguments regarding limitation periods remain valid, the judiciary is unlikely to dismiss claims summarily before the Supreme Court settles the overarching constitutional challenge.

By allowing the discovery and trial phases to proceed, the Karnataka High Court has ensured that when the Supreme Court finally issues its verdict, the Tribunals will be ready to pass judgments immediately, preventing a massive bottleneck in the resolution of motor accident compensation cases across the country.