[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager Legal vs Anand @ Anil Mahesh Chavan on 23 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:538
WP No. 201450 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.201450 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER LEGAL,
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD,
2ND FLOOR, VKG COMPLEX,
BEHIND JAYASHREE TALKIES,
VIJAYAPURA-586102
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHRIZSED SIGNATORY,
ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE)
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANAND @ ANIL MAHESH CHAVAN,
Digitally signed AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
R/O POST AT: HIREBEVANUR L. T.
COURT OF TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
KARNATAKA
2. SIDAYAYAGOUDA
S/O YASHAVANT PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AT POST: SHIRAGUR, INAM,
TQ. INDI DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS D/W; R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:538
WP No. 201450 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 RELIEFS; I) QUASH THE ORDER DATED
25.01.2025 PASSED BY IIIRD ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT AT VIJAYAPURA IN I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE INSURANCE
COMPANY/RESP.NO.2 BEFORE MACT UNDER SECTION 5
LIMITATION ACT WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN MVC
NO.986/2023, THE COPY OF ORDER WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-
D.
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 the respondent No.1 is dispensed for
the reason that no adverse order is passed against the
respondents as this Court is inclined to remit the matter to
III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Vijayapura (for
short, 'the Tribunal'), in MVC No.986/2023.
3. The petitioner-Insurance Company has called in
question the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.986/2023, wherein the Tribunal
NC: 2026:KHC-K:538
HC-KAR
dismissed I.A.No.II filed by the petitioner-Insurance
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 month 9 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 of CPC 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 under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC, which is called in question by the
petitioner-Insurance Company in this writ petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:538
HC-KAR
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."
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:538
HC-KAR
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.: 3
