- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19067 WP No. 26841 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. 26841 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, HDFC BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, GROUND FLOOR, ACR TOWER, NO.32, RESIDENCY ROAD, OPPOSITE TO SBI BANK, ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALURU-560025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JYOTHI W/O LINGARAJU H.R., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT THURCHIGATTA VILLAGE, BELAVANOOR POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. PRSENTALY R/O B BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE TOWN. 2. KIRAN @ KIRAN VENKAPPA SAVANUR S/O VENTAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. 3. GURUPADAPPA HARISHETTY S/O BASAVARAJA HARISHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19067 WP No. 26841 of 2025 R/AT HANUMASAGARA VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AISHWARYA HEGDE M V., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE 'H' THE ORDER DATED ON 18/12/2024 THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE IN MVC NO.446/2023 IN IA NO.II FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND FURTHER TRIBUNAL ERRED IN REJECTING THE IA NO.III 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 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 Petitions shall not preclude the Motor Accident Claims - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19067 WP No. 26841 of 2025 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:19067 WP No. 26841 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 PRS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 0