- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1004 WP No. 109084 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 109084 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, HONNAVARA, HONNAVARA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581334, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAXMI SURESH ACHARI W/O. SURESH VAMAN ACHARI, AGE. 51 YEARS, 2. SURESH VAMAN CHARI S/O. VAMAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. GOPALKRISHNA ACHARI S/O. SURESH ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. PAVANA SURESH ACHARI S/O. SURESH ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1004 WP No. 109084 of 2025 5. BHASKAR GOPAL ACHARI S/O. GOPAL ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT AT GUDDEMANE, MAVINAKURVA VILLAGE, HONNAVARA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581334. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNAVAR, DATED 10.10.2025 IN MVC NO.398/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘Q’, BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION I.E., I.A.NO.I FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. PASS SUCH ORDER OR ORDERS WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER EAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1004 WP No. 109084 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC passed in MVC No.398/2019 dated 10.10.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnavar, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the said application observing that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the Court to permit the claimants to convert the petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The facts of the case are that initially the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, but it came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioners approached the High Court in MFA No.103609/2023 and an order was passed initially permitting the petitioner to amend the claim petition. However, on a ‘memo for being spoken to’ moved by the insurance company the Division Bench of this Court had modified the said order and observed that the Insurance Company is at liberty to raise their objections. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that when this Court has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1004 WP No. 109084 of 2025 granted permission to the petitioner/Insurance Company to raise objections, the Trial Court without considering the said aspect has observed that there is a direction from the High Court to amend the claim petition. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to understand the order passed by the High Court and there is no such direction. The Trial Court ought to have considered the objections that were filed by the insurance company. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,1 and submits that when a petition is filed under Section 163(A) of the M. V. Act, then a petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act will not be maintainable as vice versa. It is submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. It is submitted that the claimants are not entitled to amend the petition and the Trial Court ought to have considered on the merits of it. 1 2004 (5) SCC 385 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1004 WP No. 109084 of 2025 4. Though notices are served on the respondent, no vakalath is filed on their behalf. 5. The observation of the Trial Court is that the High Court has directed the Trial Court to accept the amendment or allow the amendment petition is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court though initially had passed such an order, on a memo filed by the Insurance Company for ‘being spoken to’ had clarified that the objections can be filed by the Insurance Company and the same has to be considered. It is submitted that now the matter is posted for judgment by the Trial Court. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court ought to have considered the same on merits of it by giving opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The order on I.A.No.I passed in MVC No.398/2019 dated 10.10.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnavar is set aside - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1004 WP No. 109084 of 2025 and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court. (ii) The Trial Court shall consider the objections raised by the Insurance Company by giving fair opportunity to the Insurance Company and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. (iii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. (iv) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17