- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19157 WP No. 14040 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14040 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: IFFCO 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. KEMPARAJ VENKATESH GOWDA @ KEMPRAJ GOWDA, S/O. VENKATESH MURLI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO. 3858, 9TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560079. 2. GANESAN NEELAKANDAN, S/O. NEELAKANDAN AYYAKANNU, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19157 WP No. 14040 of 2025 AGED MAJOR, NO. 12, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGLAURU- 560091. &RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-F DT-20-11-2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-13) II ADDL JUDGE AND ACJM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC READ WITH SEC 166(3) (AMENDMENT ACT 2019) IN MVC NO.1882-2024 (ANNEXURE- F). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the II Additional Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.1882/2024, whereby the Tribunal has proceeded with the adjudication of the claim petition notwithstanding the contention of the petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19157 WP No. 14040 of 2025 that the claim petition itself is barred by limitation, having been instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner3 Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding with the claim petition despite the admitted fact that the claim petition has been filed beyond the statutory period of six months. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the question relating to the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in such matters has been examined. 3. Having examined the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is informed that the very same question, namely, whether a belated claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19157 WP No. 14040 of 2025 entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period, is presently under consideration before the Hon9ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.841238413 of 2023. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in several similar matters, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, while taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions before the Hon9ble Supreme Court, have disposed of writ petitions with an observation that the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall not come in the way of the Tribunal proceeding with the adjudication of the claim petitions. However, the Tribunal has been directed to defer the pronouncement of the final judgment and award until the issue regarding maintainability of such belated claim petitions is authoritatively decided by the Hon9ble Supreme Court. 4. In the light of the consistent view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and bearing in mind that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19157 WP No. 14040 of 2025 the issue concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the period of six months is presently sub judice before the Hon9ble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the same course. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition on merits. 5. However, the Tribunal shall refrain from pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Hon9ble Supreme Court renders its decision in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE GJM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 16