[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs The Divisional Controller on 23 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:547
WP No. 201446 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.201446 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD,
STATION ROAD, NEAR GOL GUMBAZ,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE)
(RANK OF THE PARTY BEFORE THE MACT RESP.NO.2)
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
Digitally signed CORPORATION,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
DIVISION OFFICE, ATHANI ROAD,
COURT OF VIJAYPUR-586101.
KARNATAKA (RANK OF THE PARTY BEFORE MACT PETITIONER
NO.1)
2. MANJUNATHAN K
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 14 3RD FLOOR, D-STREET FORT,
KALASIPAIYAM, VIJAYPUR-586101.
(RANK OF THE PARTY BEFORE MACT RESP.NO.1)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 23.01.2026 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:547
WP No. 201446 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT,
MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT THE
FOLLOWING RELEIFS; 1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED
23.11.2024 PASSED BY IIND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT VII AT VIJAYAPURA IN I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE
INSURANCE COMPANY/RESP.NO.2 BEFORE MACT WHICH WAS
DISMISSED IN MVC NO.3/2024, THE COPY OF ORDER, WHICH
IS AT ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance
Company.
2. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed for the
reason that no adverse order is passed against the
respondents as this Court is inclined to remit the matter to
II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VII, Vijayapura
(for short, 'the Tribunal'), in MVC No.03/2024.
3. The petitioner-Insurance Company has called in
question the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.03/2024, wherein the Tribunal
dismissed I.A.No.II filed by the petitioner-Insurance
NC: 2026:KHC-K:547
HC-KAR
Company seeking rejection of the claim petition filed by
respondent-claimant on the ground that the claim petition
is not filed within six months from the date of occurrence
of the accident and there is a delay of 1 year 7 months 4
days in filing the claim petition. Without adverting to the
merits of the matter, it is seen that in view of the claim
petition having been filed with a delay, the petitioner-
Insurance Company filed an application for rejection of the
claim petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
151 of CPC and Section 166(3) of MV (Amendment) Act,
2019, on the ground that the claim petition was barred by
the law of limitation in view of the amended Motor
Vehicles Act.
4. Upon objections being filed, the Tribunal
allowed the application filed by the claimant under Section
5 of the Limitation Act condoning delay and rejected the
application filed by the Insurance Company Order VII Rule
11 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 166(3) of MV
NC: 2026:KHC-K:547
HC-KAR
(Amendment) Act, 2019, which is called in question by the
petitioner-Insurance Company in this writ petition.
5. There are several matters from different Courts
across the country which have approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, being aggrieved by the rejection of the
application and by the delay being condoned by the claims
Tribunal, thereby permitting the continuation of the claim
petition. In Writ Petition (Civil) No.166/2024 in the case of
Bhagirathi Dash vs. Union of India and Another which
is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving the
question of limitation prescribed by the amended Motor
Vehicles Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated
16.12.2025, passed the following order:
"The pendency of these matters would also
not come in the way of claim petitions being
adjudicated by the Tribunals, except finalising
the judgments.
Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2026 at
02.00 p.m."
NC: 2026:KHC-K:547
HC-KAR
6. This being the state of affairs, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has infact held that the claim petitions could proceed
except finalising the judgments. Therefore, it would be in
the interest of both the parties and prudence demands
that in view of several pendency of matters, the claim
petitions before the respective Courts shall proceed further
except finalising the judgments in each of the matters.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8
CT:SI
