Motor accident claims may proceed, but final awards must await Supreme Court resolution of the limitation issue.

United India Insurance Company filed three petitions under Article 227 challenging orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in separate claim proceedings.

The challenged orders concerned applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and applications to amend the claim petitions under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The insurer relied on a coordinate Bench decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Uppara Savithramma & Anr., W.P. No. 26334/2026, which had permitted the Tribunal to proceed with the claims but directed it not to pass a final award pending resolution of the limitation issue before the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s orders concerning the delayed claim petitions and amendments warranted interference under Article 227.

2. Whether the connected claim proceedings could continue subject to a direction that no final award be passed while the limitation issue remained pending before the Supreme Court.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals.

The applications before the Tribunal invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act, concerning extension of the prescribed limitation period, and Order VI Rule 17 CPC, concerning amendment of pleadings.

The Court applied the coordinate Bench’s decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Uppara Savithramma & Anr., which upheld the Tribunal’s orders, allowed the claims to proceed in accordance with law, and directed that no final award be passed until the Supreme Court resolved the pending limitation issue or until further orders.

The Court noted that the coordinate Bench had considered a similar challenge by the insurer, affirmed the Tribunal’s orders allowing amendment, and permitted the claim proceedings to continue subject to the restriction on passing a final award.

Finding the present petitions to be governed by that decision, the Court adopted its observations and directions rather than separately reconsidering the challenged Tribunal orders.

Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.