SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SUVEENA S DEVADIGA
WP/30572/2024 · 2026-01-31
B M Shyam Prasad
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 50597 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 50597 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5425 WP No. 30572 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30572 OF 2024 (GM-AC)
BETWEEN:
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.146/17,16 AND 171/18, 17, KULUR FERRY ROAD, NEAR ASHOKA NAGAR POST OFFICE, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, H.O.:101, "NATRAJ", JUNCTION OF ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD AND WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400069. NOW REP. BY SBI GIC LTD., 1ST FLOOR, RUKMINI TOWERS, PLATFORM ROAD, NEAR MANTRI MALL, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020 REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER. COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SUVEENA S DEVADIGA W/O. LATE SADANANDA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5425 WP No. 30572 of 2024
2. VAISHNAVI DEVADIGA D/O. LATE SADANANDA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS. 3. VAIBHAV DEVADIGA S/O. LATE SADANANDA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. SINCE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT ARE MINORS WILL BE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER I.E., SUVEENA S. DEVADIGA. ALL ARE R/AT SHANTHALKE, BOLA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK AND UDUPI DISTRICT. 4. YASHWANTHA S/O. LATE. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.7-57/1, KALAI, KANDETTI, BIKARNAKATTE, KULSHEKHARA POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. PERMANENT ADDRESS
R/AT NO.7-57/1, KALAI KANDETTU, BIKARNAKATTE, KULSHEKHARA POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE FOR R.1;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5425 WP No. 30572 of 2024
TOQUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNX-D DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT UDUPI ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC R/W SECTION 166(3) AMENDMENT ACT 219 AS PER ANNX-D IN MVC NO.948/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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.948/2023 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
MACT, Udupi [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11[d] r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w. Section 166(3) of the Act contending that the claim
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5425 WP No. 30572 of 2024
petition cannot be entertained because it is filed beyond six months from the date of accident. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, has rejected the petitioner’s application. The question: whether a claim petition filed beyond six months from the date of the accident can be entertained 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 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
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5425 WP No. 30572 of 2024
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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0