Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 253 (KAR)

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. CHANDRA KUMAR C N

WP/2035/2026 · 2026-02-18

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9941 WP No. 2035 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2035 OF 2026 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO 25TH 36TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560010. 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. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANDRA KUMAR C N W/O LATE C.N.NAGARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9941 WP No. 2035 of 2026 2. MARUTHEESHA.C.N S/O LATE C.N.NAARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO 157, MARUTHI NILAYA, 10TH CROSS, KALYANA NAGARA, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALURU.560057. 3. SRI. T. PRANESH RAO, S/O SEETHARAM RAO R/AT WARD NO.15, JOGERVADA, GANGAVATHI TALUK KOPPALA DISTRICT 583222. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 9/9/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM AT BENGALURU NO 2585/2025 AT ANNEXURE-E ON THE APPLICATION FIELD ORDER 7 RULES 11(D)R/W 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AT ANNEXURE-D; B. ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO II FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) READ WITH 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE R/W SECTION 166(3) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AS PER THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9941 WP No. 2035 of 2026 ANNEXURE-D IN MVC NO 2585/2025 AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IN MVC NO 2585/2025 AT ANNEXURE-B FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 1 TO 2 IS BARRED BY TIME AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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.2585/2025 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. If the claimants have 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9941 WP No. 2035 of 2026 Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of CPC 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 09.09.2025, has allowed the application filed by the claimants 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9941 WP No. 2035 of 2026 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 SA ct:sr