SRI BOREGOWDA vs SRI THAMMANNA C
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.1832 OF 2026 (GM-AC)
BETWEEN:
SRI BOREGOWDA
S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT MANIKYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MELUKOTE HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571431.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH G. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KENCHEGOWDA B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI THAMMANNA .C
S/O CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTI NAGAR,
NEAR SANTHU MILL,
PANDAVAPURA TOWN,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571434.
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
ST
ANAND COMPLEX, 1 FLOOR,
KRS ROAD, PANDAVAPURA,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571434.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, BY QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
PANDAVAPURA, IN MVC NO.820/2023, AS PER ANNEXURE-E, BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 18.01.2025 passed
by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Pandavapura [ the Tribunal ] in MVC No.820/2023,
whereby I.A. No.II filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act
Limitation Act, 1963 [ ], seeking condonation of delay
of 147 days in preferring the claim petition came to be rejected and
consequently, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [ MV Act ] was dismissed as barred by
limitation.
Brief Facts:
2. The petitioner met with an accident on 01.08.2022 while
proceeding on his motorcycle on Nagamangala-Pandavapura Main
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
Road near Bellale Village. According to the petitioner, the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-11-U-6109. As a result of the accident,
the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, including a left volar,
barton's fracture, loss of two incisor teeth, mandibular injury and
other bodily injuries.
3. The petitioner instituted a claim petition on 05.06.2023
seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.
Along with the claim petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No.II seeking
condonation of delay of 147 days beyond prescribed period under
Section 166 (3) of the MV Act. The application was opposed by
respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
4. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the application and
objections thereto, rejected the application and consequently,
dismissed the claim petition as barred by limitation. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.
Submissions:
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the circumstances which
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
prevented the petitioner from presenting the claim petition within
the prescribed period. It is submitted that the petitioner was
undergoing treatment for the grievous injuries sustained in the
accident and subsequently, suffered from fever and jaundice, on
account of which he could not secure the necessary documents to
institute the claim petition within time.
6. Learned counsel would submit that, pursuant to the
subsequent amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act, which
was brought into force by Notification dated 24.07.2026, the Claims
Tribunal is empowered to entertain a claim petition beyond the
initial period of six months, but within a further period not exceeding
12 months, subject to sufficient cause being established. It is
contended that the petitioner's claim falls within the extended
statutory period and that the explanation offered constitutes
sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
7. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company would seek to justify the impugned order,
contending that the petitioner has failed to establish sufficient
cause for presenting the claim petition beyond the prescribed
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
period. It is submitted that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the
application and the impugned order does not warrant interference.
Reasons and conclusion:
8. The question that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the Tribunal rejecting the application seeking
condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the
claim petition as barred by limitation warrants
interference?”
9. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 01.08.2022
and that the claim petition seeking compensation was presented on
05.06.2023. The petitioner sought condonation of delay of 147
days beyond prescribed period of six months. The explanation
offered by the petitioner is that he was undergoing treatment for the
injuries sustained in the accident and subsequently, suffered from
fever and jaundice, which prevented him from securing the
necessary documents and presenting the claim petition within the
prescribed period. In support of his explanation, the petitioner
examined himself and produced the wound certificate, police
records and the discharge summary.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
10. The Tribunal, having regard to the limitation prescribed under
Section 166(3) of the MV Act, rejected the application and
consequently, dismissed the claim petition.
11. It is relevant to note that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation
intended to provide compensation to victims of the motor vehicle
accidents.
12. The provision relating to compensation claims are therefore
required to be considered bearing in mind the object and purpose
of the enactment, without disregarding the statutory requirements.
13. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the present
writ petition, a proviso to Section 166(3) of the MV Act was inserted
by Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, which was
brought into force with effect from 15.08.2026 pursuant to the
Notification dated 24.07.2026. The proviso reads as under:
“Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain
an application for compensation after the expiry of the
said period of six months from the date of occurrence of
the accident, but within a further period not exceeding
twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause from making an
application within such period.””
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
14. A plain reading of the aforesaid proviso makes it evident that
the Claims Tribunal is empowered to entertain an application for
compensation beyond the initial period of six months, but within an
extended period prescribed therein, if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the
application within such period. The amendment thus recognises the
circumstances in which an accident victim may be prevented from
instituting a claim petition within the initial period of limitation.
15. In this context, it is apposite to refer the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and
1
others , wherein the effect of deletion of Section 166(3) of the MV
Act was considered. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“ 7. In this background, now it has to be examined
as to what is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of
Section 166 of the Act. From the amending Act it does not
appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted
retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the
amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section
(3) of Section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim
petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. The
effect of deletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 of the
Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose an accident
had taken place two years before 14-11-1994 when sub-
section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or
the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or
1
(1996) 4 SCC 652
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
the heirs of the victim till 14-11-1994. Can a claim petition
be not filed after 14-11-1994 in respect of such accident?
Whether a claim petition filed after 14-11-1994 can be
rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying
that the period of twelve months which had been prescribed
when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force having
expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been
extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of sub-
section (3) of Section 166 w.e.f. 14-11-1994? According to
us, the answer should be in negative. When sub-section (3)
of Section 166 has been omitted, then the Tribunal has to
entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on
which such accident had taken place. The claim petitions
cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim
petitions were barred by time when sub-section (3) of
Section 166 was in force. It need not be impressed that
Parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in
the old Act as well as in the new Act in order to protect the
interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the
victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in
the Act by the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994 by
substituting sub-section (6) of Section 158 which provides:
“158. (6) As soon as any information regarding any
accident involving death or bodily injury to any
person is recorded or report under this section is
completed by a police officer, the officer in charge of
the police station shall forward a copy of the same
within thirty days from the date of recording of
information or, as the case may be, on completion of
such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction
and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and
where a copy is made available to the owner, he
shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report,
forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and
insurer.”
In view of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the
officer-in-charge of the police station is enjoined to forward
a copy of information/report regarding the accident to the
Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof has also to be
forwarded to the insurer concerned. It also requires that
where a copy is made available to the owner of the vehicle,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
he shall within thirty days of receipt of such copy forward
the same to the Claims Tribunal and insurer. In this
background, the deletion of sub-section (3) from Section
166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion
of the said section by Parliament is not defeated. If a victim
of the accident or heirs of the deceased victim can prefer
claim for compensation although not being preferred earlier
because of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed,
how the victim or the heirs of the deceased shall be in a
worse position if the question of condonation of delay in
filing the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal,
the High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is
one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from the
Tribunal to this Court. His right to get compensation in
connection with the accident in question is being resisted by
the respondents on the ground of delay in filing the same. If
he had not filed any petition for claim till 14-11-1994 in
respect of the accident which took place on 4-12-1990, in
view of the amending Act he became entitled to file such
claim petition, the period of limitation having been deleted,
the claim petition which has been filed and is being pursued
up to this Court cannot be thrown out on the ground of
limitation.
8. The matter will be different if any claimant
having filed a petition for claim beyond time which has been
rejected by the Tribunal or the High Court, the claimant
does not challenge the same and allows the said judicial
order to become final. The aforesaid amending Act shall be
of no help to such claimant. The reason being that a judicial
order saying that such petition of claim was barred by
limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not
govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition for
claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve months
from the date of the accident is pending consideration either
before the Tribunal, the High Court or this Court. In such
cases, the benefit of amendment of sub-section (3) of
Section 166 should be extended. ”
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that the benefit of
subsequent amendment could be extended to proceedings in
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
which the question of limitation was pending consideration, as
distinguished from proceedings in which the claim had already
been rejected on the ground of limitation and such rejection had
attained finality.
17. Though the amendment considered in Dhannalal ( supra )
related to the deletion of the provision prescribing the period of
limitation, the principle enunciated therein assumes relevance in
the present case.
18. The order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition had
been called in question before this Court, and the proceedings
remained pending when the subsequent amendment came into
force. The rejection of the claim petition has therefore not attained
finality.
19. Having regard to the beneficial nature of legislation and the
intervening statutory amendment, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the amended
provision.
20. Coming to the present facts, the claim petition was presented
on 05.06.2023 in respect of the accident that occurred on
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
01.08.2022, which is within the extended period contemplated
under the amended proviso.
21. The petitioner has specifically explained that he was
undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in an accident and
was subsequently affected by a fever and jaundice. The wound
certificate, the discharge summary and other materials placed on
record lend support to the explanation furnished by the petitioner.
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and
circumstances explained, this Court is satisfied that the sufficient
cause has been established for condoning the delay in presenting
the claim petition.
22. In the circumstances, the rejection of the claim petition on
ground of limitation cannot be sustained. The subsequent
amendment to Section 166(3) of the MV Act, the principle
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal ( supra )
and the sufficient cause established by the petitioner warrants
interference with the impugned order. The petitioner is entitled to
have the claim petition adjudicated on its merits in accordance with
law.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55620
WP No. 1832 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010035722026
23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed .
ii. The impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Pandavapura in MVC No.820/2023 is hereby
set aside .
iii. I.A.No.II filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of
delay is allowed and the delay of 147 days in presenting
the claim petition is condoned.
iv. MVC No.820/2023 is restored to the file of the Tribunal.
v. The Tribunal shall proceed to adjudicate the claim petition
on its merits, in accordance with law.
vi. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
05.11.2026.
Sd/-
_____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35