" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4040 WP No. 957 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 957 OF 2026 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,NO 85/2, AMS COMPLEX, OPP TO NANDI PETROL BUNK, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, OLD P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-57700, NOW REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.R ARCADE, BINALAKALLI MAIN ROAD, BILEKAHALLI OF B.G.ROAD, IIMB POST,BANGALORE-76. COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4040 WP No. 957 of 2026 AND: 1. SMT MEENAKSHI W/O LATE PARASANNAPPA@ PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. HARISHA.P S/O LATE PARASANNAPPA@ PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 3. KUM. PRIYANKA.P D/O LATE PARASANNAPPA@ PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT ANTHAPURA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRDURGA DISTRICT - 577 523. 4. HALASWAMY.A.B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS. R/O ARAASINAGHATT VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TAUK, DAVANAGERE-DISTRICT - 577213. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 7/8/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI IN MVC NO 213/2024 AT Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4040 WP No. 957 of 2026 ANNEXURE-H ON THE IA NO IV AT ANNEXURE-F; B. ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO IV 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 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-F IN MVC NO 213/2024 AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IN MVC NO 213/2024 AT ANNEXURE-B FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 1 IS BARRED BY TIME AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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.213/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil judge and JMFC, Channagiri [for short, 'the Tribunal']. If the claimants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4040 WP No. 957 of 2026 1963 for condonation of the delay in filing the claim petition, the petitioner has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11[d] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 166(3) of the Act contending that the petition because it is filed beyond six months from the date of accident is not maintainable. The Tribunal, by the common impugned order dated 07.08.2025 has allowed the application filed by the claimants rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The question: whether a belated claim petition could be entertained condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 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 Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4040 WP No. 957 of 2026 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 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 ct:sr Printed from counselvise.com "