Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11173 (KAR)

IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD v. SANJAY KUMARA G

WP/14149/2025 · 2026-03-27

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18304 WP No. 14149 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14149 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PRADEEP ARCADE, JCR MAIN ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN KARNATAKA – 577 501 NOW REP BY THE IFFICO TOKIO GIC LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 043. REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER. (COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956.) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANJAY KUMARA G S/O. GOVINDARAJA. G., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O KOTTURU, KOTTURU TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.-583134 NOW R/AT KELAGOTE, 2ND CROSS, CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. AMZAD PASHA Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18304 WP No. 14149 of 2025 S/O. BASHIR AHAMAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RIO, 427, 1 FLOOR, NEXT TO NURANI MASJID, 7TH CROSS, ILEYAS NAGARA JAYAPRAKASH NAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH-560078. …RESPONDENTS (R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-E DT-13.02.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHITRADURGA ON APPLICATION BEARING NO.1-2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC READ WITH SEC 166(3) (AMENDMENT ACT 2019 IN MVC NO.479-2023) 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 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18304 WP No. 14149 of 2025 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; 4.2. However, the Tribunal shall not pronounce or draw up the final award in the said proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18304 WP No. 14149 of 2025 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’ble Supreme Court holds that claim petitions filed beyond the period of six months from the date of the accident are maintainable, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed to pronounce and draw up the final award in accordance with law; 5.2. Conversely, if it is held that such claim petitions are not maintainable, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in conformity with the law so declared. 6. With the above Observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 0