Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31831 OF 2024 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, NO. 1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR, MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
Digitally RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE signed by COMPANY LIMITED, VANAMALA N NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR, Location: EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL.,ADVOCATE) -2- AND:
1. D T ARUNKUMAR S/O. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHIKKAKABBIGERE, GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 521.
2. VENKATESH. M. R.
S/O. RUDRAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF KURKI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANN-E DATED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT CHITRADURGA ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND READ WITH SECTION 166(3) (AMENDED ACT 2019) OF THE INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT IN MVC NO. 821/2023. -3- ii) ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANN-E AND HOLD THAT CLAIM PETITION AS PER ANN-A IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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.821/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11[d] r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w. Section 166(3) of the Act contending that the claim petition cannot be entertained because it is filed beyond six months from the date of accident. The Tribunal, by -4- the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, has rejected the petitioner’s application. The question: whether a claim petition filed beyond six months from the date of the accident can be entertained 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 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 -5- 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