Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6177 (KAR)

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., v. T M SHOBHA

WP/27820/2025 · 2026-03-27

Suraj Govindaraj

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19082 WP No. 27820 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. 27820 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., TP HUB, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T M SHOBHA W/O. LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 2. PREETHAM GOWDA, S/O. LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS. 3. INCHARA. V, D/O. LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. 4. RAMANNA. Y., S/O. YALAKKIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. SINCE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT ARE MINORS WILL BE REP BY THEIR MOTHER I.E., T.M. SHOBHA ALL ARE R/AT ANCHE CHITTANAHALLI, NAGAMANGALA, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19082 WP No. 27820 of 2025 MANDYA-571432 5. KEERTHIRAJ. V.G., S/O. GANGADHARA V.N., MAJOR, VADERAPURA, A.C. HALLI POST, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA-571432. …RESPONDENTS (R1-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITIONIS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 11-07-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU IN M.V.C. NO. 1692/2024 AT ANNEXURE A 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19082 WP No. 27820 of 2025 Petitions shall not preclude the Motor Accident Claims 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:19082 WP No. 27820 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