Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14033 (KAR)

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. COLONEL KODETHOOR THAMMAYYA UDUPA

WP/36358/2025 · 2026-03-27

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19702 WP No. 36358 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. 36358 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRY AREA JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN-302022 SERVICING OFFICE: 302, D.NO14-2-101/6 3RD FLOOR MANGALORE-575001 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANGER. NOW REP BY M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.R ARCADE, BINALAKALLI MAIN ROAD, BILEKAHALLI OF B.G.ROAD, IIMB POST, BANGALORE-76. REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL. (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT-1956) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COLONEL KODETHOOR THAMMAYYA UDUPA S/O LATE SHRI GURURAJ UDUPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO. 61 UDUPI-MANIPAL MAIN ROAD LAXMINDRA NAGAR, KUNJIBET, UDUPI.576102. 2. RAMANANDA S/O LATE VASU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 46, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19702 WP No. 36358 of 2025 NO.4-56A, NOOLE PADIGARA KUNJIBETTU POST, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI. -576102 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 9/9/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT UDUPI IN MVC NO 339/2025 AT ANNEXURE-F ON THE APPLICATION FIELD ORDER 7 RULES 11(D)R/W 151OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AT ANNEXURE-D 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 Petitions shall not preclude the Motor Accident Claims - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19702 WP No. 36358 of 2025 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:19702 WP No. 36358 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 List No.: 19 Sl No.: 0