Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9332 (KAR)

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. S L RAKESH

WP/9307/2024 · 2026-03-27

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18244 WP No. 9307 of 2024 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. 9307 OF 2024 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LIGHT HILL HOUSE , COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, HAMPANAKATTE MANGALURU, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURNCE CO. LTD., 9TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE, 121 DICKENSON ROAD, M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 042 COMPANY REGISTER UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S L RAKESH S/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, HEMMANE VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTE, SHANIVARASANTE HOBLI, SOMWARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT. PRESENTLY AT C/O GANGADHAR KOTE ARAKALGUD TOWN, ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102. 2. RENUKAPPA S/O SHIVANNA AGGUNDA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102. 3. SMT. PREMA Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18244 WP No. 9307 of 2024 W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HEMMANE VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE, SHANIVARASANTE HOBLI, SOMWARPETE TLAUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-D DATED 12.2.24 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUD ON IA NO. 1 FILED UNDER SECTION 166(3) OF MV ACT IN MVC NO. 586/2023 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:18244 WP No. 9307 of 2024 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:18244 WP No. 9307 of 2024 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