Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Hanumamma And Ors on 13 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202613 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 202619 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 203335 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 203459 OF 2024
IN W.P.NO.202613/2024
BETWEEN:
M/S SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E8, EPPI, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN 302 022.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
CTS NO.477/1M-1, 1ST FLOOR,
V.A. KALABURAGI HALLMARK,
Digitally signed BESIDE INSDUSLAND BANK,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA DESAI ROAD, PINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI,
UDAGI REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANIL S/O JAGANNATH,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VILLAGE KONMELKUNDA,
TALUKA BHALKI,
DISTRICT BIDAR - 585 401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
2. DATTATRI S/O BASAPPA SUNTE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: VILLAGE KONMELKUNDA,
TALUKA BHALKI,
DISTRICT BIDAR - 585 401.
(OWNER CUM DRIVER OF BOLERO PICKUP
BEARING NO. KA-32-C-0855)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AJAY JAWALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
06.12.2023 PASSED IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.II
BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BIDAR IN MVC
NO.252/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.202619/2024
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
#3/1, PLATFORM ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HANUMAMMA W/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: TIPPANAHATTI,
TQ: SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 585 401.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
2. MALLAPPA S/O BASSAPPA,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: TIPPANAHATTI,
TQ: SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 585 401.
3. P. RAGHAVENDRA S/O P.VENKATRAO,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR,
R/O: SRINIVAS CAMP,
POST JAWALAGERA, TQ: SINDHANUR, ,
DIST: RAICHUR - 585 401.
4. HUCHAREDDY S/O BASSAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR,
R/O: SRINIVAS CAMP,
POST JAWALAGERA, TQ: SINDHANUR, ,
DIST: RAICHUR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 AND R4 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
14.06.2024 PASSED IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.I
AND II BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR
IN M.V.C.NO.532/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND G1, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA-II, FILED BY THE PETITIONER
REJECTION THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
1 AND 2 ARE BARRED BY THE LIMITATION.
IN W.P.NO.203335/2024
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, ASIAN BUSINESS CENTER,
BESIDE ASIAN MALL, KALABURAGI.
(INSURER OF TUM-TUM AUTO
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
BEARING REGN NO.KA-32/D-1202)
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O YALLAPPA KALLUR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DESAI KALLUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AFZALPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. SANTOSH S/O KALYANI NAIKODI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DESAI KALLUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
(OWNER OF TUM-TUM AUTO BERAING REGN.
NO.KA32/D-1202)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.J.TUPPAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
08.07.2024 PASSED IN I.A. NO.I AND I.A.NO.III BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR, IN
M.V.C.NO.1795/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.203459/2024
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
NEW COTTON MARKET, VIDYA NAGAR,
P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 031.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRANESH S/O LAXMANRAO KULKARNI,,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN TATA
SERVICE STATION, NOW NIL,
R/O: VIDYA NAGAR, SINDAGI
NOW RESIDINGAT KANAKADAS BADAVANE,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. MAHESH S/O BASAVARAJ JAKATI,
AGE: MAJOR YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR - 585 202.
(OWNER OF CRETA CAR NO.KA33/M-5588)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. SRIDEVI J. TUPPAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
20.02.2024 PASSED IN I.A. NO.5 BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.1411/2022
VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners in each of the above matters are
before this Court seeking following reliefs:
In W.P.No.202613/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the
order dated 06.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.II by the
Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Bidar in MVC
No.252/2023 vide Annexure-E.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case
in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the
circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.202619/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the
order dated 14.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.I & II, by
the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur in MVC
No.532/2023 vide Annexure-G & G1, and
consequently allow I.A.-II filed by the petitioner
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024rejection the claim petition filed by the respondents
1 & 2 as barred by the Limitation.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of
the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the
circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.203335/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the
order dated 08.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.I &
I.A.No.III, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Afzalpur in MVC no.1795/2023 vide Annexure-F.
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of
the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the
circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.203459/2024:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the
order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.5 by the
IV-Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Vijayapura in
MVC No.1411/2022 vide Annexure-F.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of
the case in the interest of justice.
c) Pass any such order or direction deems fit under the
circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. In each of the above matters, respondent
No.1/claimant in each of the above matters had filed a
proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, ‘the M.V.Act’) for compensation arising out
of an accident that had taken place.
3. In W.P.No.202613/2024, MVC No.252/2023
was filed by respondent No.1 as regards an accident which
occurred on 03.10.2022 and the claim petition has been
filed on 22.05.2023 along with an application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 50 days in
filing the claim petition.
4. In W.P.No.202619/2024, MVC No.532/2023
was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as regards an accident
which occurred on 16.04.2023 along with an application
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking
condonation of delay of one month five days in filing the
claim petition. In the said claim petition, petitioner-
Insurance Company who was respondent No.3 filed
application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
of CPC to reject the claim petition on the ground that it is
barred by limitation as per Section 166(3) of the M.V.Act.
5. In W.P.No.203335/2024 respondent No.1 filed
MVC No.1795/2023 as regards an accident which occurred
on 22.06.2022 along with an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 329
days in filing the claim petition. The petitioner-Insurance
Company had filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC read with Section 166(3) of the M.V.Act, seeking
rejection of the petition on the ground of delay.
6. In W.P.No.203459/2024 respondent No.1 had
filed MVC No.1411/2022 as regards an accident occurred
on 20.05.2022 and the said petition has been filed on
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
23.11.2022. In the said petition the petitioner-Insurance
Company had filed application under Order 7 Rule of 11
read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 166(3) of the
M.V.Act, seeking rejection of the claim petition as filed
beyond period of six months as per Section 166(3) of the
M.V.Act.
7. In the above proceedings, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) has allowed
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
condoned the delay and rejected application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 166(3) of the
M.V.Act, where under rejection of the claim petition has
been sought on the ground of delay.
8. It was contended that sub-section 3 of Section
166 of the M.V.Act, having come into force on 01.04.2022,
no application for compensation would be entertained
unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the
accident.
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
9. In all the above matters, the claim petition
having been filed after the said period of six months, which
is admitted by the petitioner and the mere fact of filing an
application for condonation of delay, would not entertain
such a condonation and as such the petitioner-Insurance
Company had sought for dismissal on the ground that there
is no condonation of delay, which is permissible.
Challenging the same, the aforesaid petitions have been
filed.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners-Insurance
Company would submit that pursuant to the amendment to
the M.V.Act, which came into force on 01.04.2022 any
claim petition is required to be filed within a period of six
months and if not so filed, no claim petition would be
entertained and as such submits that the Tribunal was
committed an error in condoning the delay so also by
dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC read with Section 151 of CPC and 166(3) of the
M.V.Act.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
11. The only issue raised in the present matters is
as regards the limitation period. The Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court considering the similar issue in the case of
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
LTD., vs. Ramu @ Ramesh S/o Yallappa & Ors., in
Writ Petition No.201961/2023 DD:21.07.2023 has
observed as under:
8. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for a claim of
compensation to be made on account of either
injury or death being caused due to a motor
vehicle accident. It is amply clear that section
166 of the MV Act is a beneficial provision which
is contained in the MV Act as amended from time
to time to provide benefit to any injured or to the
legal representatives of a deceased. The object of
section 166 of the MV Act being beneficial, any
provision to be applied relating thereto would
also, in my considered opinion, be required to be
applied beneficially.
9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for
condonation of delay wherever any claim petition,
appeal, etc., are filed beyond the period of
limitation and provides discretion to the Court to
consider the reasons made out in an application
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and if
sufficient cause is made out to condone the
delay. As aforesaid MV Act being a beneficial
enactment Section 5 of the Limitation Act being
enacted to provide succor to persons who have
come to Court late, but with a valid reason,
Section 5 of the Limitation Act would also have to
be considered beneficially and there being no bar
under the MV Act for applying the principles
under section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am of the
considered opinion that it cannot now be said that
there is a blanket embargo under subsection (3)
of Section 166 of the MV Act in entertaining a
claim petition filed after the limitation period.
10. There is one other way of looking at this,
inasmuch as with the amendments made in the
year 2019 and the Rules which have been framed
in the year 2022, it is required that the
Investigating Officer who registers the First
Accident Report (FAR) at the time of the accident
is to forward the same to the jurisdictional Court
and FAR is required to be treated as a claim
petition and the proceedings to commence
immediately by issuance of notice to the
insurance company.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
11. The object of this amendment is also to see to it
that claimants either injured or legal
representatives of the deceased, who may or may
not know the provisions of law, are provided
remedy through law automatically instead of they
being required to approach the Court. The FAR
itself being treated as a claim petition on the FAR
being transmitted to the Court. In the present
case, unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has
not done so. If the Investigating Officer had
forwarded the FAR, it would have been treated as
a claim petition and the proceedings started and
there could never be any delay in filing a claim
petition as now sought to be contended by the
insurance company. It is required that all the
Police Officers/Investigating Officers registering
an FAR relating to an accident adhere to the
provision of section 159 of the MV Act and
forward all first information reports registered in
respect of an accident to the Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal, so that the same can be
treated as the claim petition and the process
commenced.
12. By way of amendment to the MV Act in the year
2019, there have been several changes which
have been made to the manner in which a motor
vehicle accident has to be handled, how a victim
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
has to be compensated, the grievance redressed,
etc.,
13. In terms of Section 159 of the MV Act, the Police
Officer shall during the investigation prepare an
accident information report to facilitate the
settlement of claim in such form and manner
within three months and containing such
particulars submit the same to the claims
Tribunal and such other agencies as may be
prescribed.
14. Section 159 of the MV Act reads as under:
159. Information to be given regarding
accident.– The police officer shall, during the
investigation, prepare an accident information
report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such
form and manner, within three months and
containing such particulars and submit the same to
the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may
be prescribed.
15. In terms of Section 160 of the MV Act, registering
authority or officer-in-charge of the police station
is required to perform certain duties. The said
Section reads as under:
160. Duty to furnish particulars of vehicle
involved in accident — A registering authority or
the officer-in-charge of a police station shall, if so
required by a person who alleges that he is entitled
to claim compensation in respect of an accident
arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, or if so
required by an insurer against whom a claim has
been made in respect of any motor vehicle, furnish
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
to that person or to that insurer, as the case may
be, on payment of the prescribed fee, any
information at the disposal of the said authority or
the said police officer relating to the identification
marks and other particulars of the vehicle and the
name and address of the person who was using
the vehicle at the time of the accident or was
injured by it and the property, if any, damaged in
such form and within such time as the Central
Government may prescribe.
16. In terms of Section 161 of the MV Act, certain
interim compensation is contemplated to be paid
and a scheme to be notified. The said Section
reads as under:
161. Special provisions as to compensation in
case of hit and run motor accident — (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force or any instrument having
the force of law, the Central Government shall
provide for paying in accordance with the provisions
of this Act and the scheme made under sub-section
(3), compensation in respect of the death of, or
grievous hurt to, persons resulting from hit and run
motor accidents.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the
scheme made under sub-section (3), there shall be
paid as compensation,–
(a) in respect of the death of any person
resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a
fixed sum of two lakh rupees or such higher
amount as may be prescribed by the Central
Government;
(b) in respect of grievous hurt to any person
resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a
fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees or such
higher amount as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
(3) The Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, make a scheme specifying the
manner in which the scheme shall be administered
by the Central Government or General Insurance
Council, the form, manner and the time within
which applications for compensation may be made,
the officers or authorities to whom such applications
may be made, the procedure to be followed by such
officers or authorities for considering and passing
orders on such applications, and all other matters
connected with, or incidental to, the administration
of the scheme and the payment of compensation
under this section.
(4) A scheme made under sub-section (3) may
provide that,–
(a) a payment of such sum as may be
prescribed by the Central Government as interim
relief to any claimant under such scheme;
(b) a contravention of any provision thereof
shall be punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to two years, or with fine which
shall not be less than twenty-five thousand
rupees but may extend to five lakh rupees or
with both;
(c) the powers, functions or duties conferred or
imposed on any officer or authority by such
scheme may be delegated with the prior
approval in writing of Central Government, by
such officer or authority to any other officer or
authority.]
17. The Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of
2022’ for short) having come into force on
01.04.2022, those Rules which give effect to the
amendment in the year 2019, would also have to
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
be read along with and in conjunction with
subsection (3) of Section 166 of the MV Act. In
my considered opinion, apart from the reasons
aforestated, subsection (3) of Section 166 of the
MV Act, is virtually rendered redundant, if not
redundant, it is made dependent on the various
actions required to be carried out by the different
authorities under the Rules of 2022.
18. In terms of Rule 150A, the procedure to be
followed for investigation of an accident arising
out of use of motor vehicle has been provided for
to be in accordance with Annexure-XIII.
19. Annexure-XIII provides for procedure for
investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents.
19.1 Investigation of road accident cases by
the Investigating Officer/Police who shall
inspect the site of accident, take
photographs, etc., and shall intimate the
accident to the claims Tribunal within 48
hours of the accident by submitting the
First Accident Report (FAR) in Form-I of
the Rules of 2022, which Form-I shall
also be provided to the victim, State
Legal Services Authority, insurer and
shall also be uploaded on the website of
the State Police.
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
19.2 The driver’s details are required to be
furnished in terms of Form-III and
owner’s details in terms of Form-IV
within 30 days of the accident.
19.3 An Interim Accident Report (IAR) in
terms of Form-V is required to be
furnished within 50 days of the accident
to the Insurance Company,
victim/claimant, State Legal Services
Authority, etc.,
19.4 The driver and owners’ details are
required to be verified by the
Investigating Officer from the information
available in the VAHAN website and a
report in terms of Form-X is required to
be submitted to the claims Tribunal.
19.5 The details of the victim or legal
representatives of deceased is required
to be submitted in Form-VI and if minor
children are involved in terms of Form-
VI-A which shall be so submitted to the
Child Welfare Committee and the
requirement under Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is
required to be complied with.
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
19.6 The investigation/criminal cases are
required to be completed within 60 days
and report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
is required to be submitted along with
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) which
shall be prepared in terms of Form-VII.
19.7 The DAR is also required to be submitted
to the claims Tribunal within 90 days
from the date of accident. The claims
Tribunal is required to treat the DAR as a
claim petition for compensation under
subsection (4) of Section 166 of the MV
Act, if the Investigating Officer were to
furnish the details of the claimants. If not
so furnished, the claims Tribunal has to
register the DAR as a claim petition. after
the appearance of the claimants.
19.8 The Insurance Company is required to
appoint a designated officer within 10
days from the date of receipt of DAR as
nodal officer.
19.9 The Insurance Company verify the claim
by appointing an investigator or surveyor
whose report shall be forwarded to the
Deputy Commissioner of Police
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
concerned depending upon the
investigating officer finding the accident
to be true or false, the necessary steps
will have to be taken.
19.10 If the claim of the accident were to be
genuine, then the Insurance Company is
required to submit its offer to the
claimants in terms of Form-XI along with
report of the surveyor/investigator. If the
amounts offered under Form-XI were to
be accepted, a consent award is required
to be passed. In case of non-acceptance,
enquiry to be held in the matter.
19.11 The above indicates the action to be
taken by the Investigating Officer,
Insurance Company, etc., which would in
effect make subsection (3) of Section
166 of the MV Act redundant.
20. It is in that background, subsection (3) of Section
166 of the MV Act, has to be considered.
Subsection (3) of Section 166 of the MV Act
provides that no application for compensation
shall be entertained unless it is made within six
months of the occurrence of the accident. This
subsection (3) of Section 166 of the MV Act is
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
required to be applied prospectively from the date
on which the amendment came into effect and
cannot be applied retrospectively.
21. Be that as it may, subsection (3) of Section 166
of the MV Act would also have to be read in
consonance with Sections 159, 160 and 161 of
the MV Act among other provisions of the MV Act.
22. Insofar as accident arising after the Rules of 2022
came into effect on 01.04.2022, it is required that
the DAR be treated as a claim petition under
subsection (4) of Section 166 of the MV Act and
the persons, whose details are furnished by the
Investigating Officer as claimants, are to be so
treated as claimants. If the Investigating Officer
were not to furnish such details, then in the event
of claimants appearing before the Court claiming
compensation on account of the accident, the
DAR is required to register as a claim petition
after appearance of such claimants. The time
period for submission of the DAR is stated to be
90 days. There is no particular time period fixed
for appearance of the claimants if details are not
furnished by the Investigating Officer, thus,
subsection (3) of Section 166, in my considered
opinion, would be rendered redundant by the
methodology of carrying out investigation and
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
registering of a claim petition. These aspects
would also have to be looked into by the
legislature. After the above are implemented, all
the documents in terms of Forms and Annexure-
XIII can be electronically transmitted among all
the stakeholders as also to the Court, if that is
done, then the transfer and exchange of the
documents being done in an asynchronous
manner. That is to say, all the stakeholders
receiving the documents simultaneously at the
same or different points of time without following
serial order would expedite the matter and
further enable Courts to register the DAR as a
claim petition, secure evidence electronically and
conduct proceedings expeditiously.
24. Though, these Rules of 2022 have come into
effect on 01.04.2022, on enquiry, learned counsel
for the petitioner-Insurance Company submits
that the same has not been given effect to in its
entirety. The nature of information as also
quantum of information and the interaction
between different departments is required to be
done in an asynchronous manner and the
information from each of the stake holders being
required to be shared with the other real time.
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
26. Irrespective of Rules of 2022, in terms of Section
159 of the MV Act, if the Investigating Officer has
submitted the First Accident Report in terms of
Section 159 of the MV Act, the same would have
reached the Court for necessary action to be
taken. It is on account of Investigating Officer not
having sent the First Accident Report that the
above situation has arisen.
27. As afore observed, the MV Act being a beneficial
Act, the provisions thereof had to be given
beneficial meaning and effect. The benefit under
the Act, cannot be taken away on a technical
aspect that too of limitation, thus, the Trial Court
having applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
the fact situation, I do not find any infirmity
thereof.
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering
the similar issue in the case of The New India Ass. Co.
Ltd., vs. Sakkubai W/o Eshwar @ Isuru and Anr., in
W.P.No.201732/2024 c/w W.P.No.201740/2024,
W.P.No.201737/2024 DD: 01.10.2024 has observed
thus:
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
13. The legal issues raised in the present matter has
been dealt with by this Court extensively in
Shivaswmay vs The Chief Information
Commissioner1, and has come to a conclusion that
the MV Act being a beneficial Act, the provisions
thereof have to be given beneficial meaning and
effect, such a benefit cannot be taken away on a
technical aspect of limitation.
14. Though Sub-section (3) of Section 166 speaks of a
6-months period for filing of the claim petition, there
is no embargo on application of the Limitation Act to
the said proceedings and as such, this Court has
held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would also
be equally applicable to a claim petition filed under
section 166 of the MV Act.
15. This Court has also dealt with the various
amendments which have been made to the MV Act
and the Rules, more particularly by Central Motor
Vehicles (5th Amendment) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter
referred to as “Rules 2022”), whereby Rule 150A
has been introduced, which provides for
investigation to be conducted by the investigating
officer and to file an Interim Accident Report (IAR)
in Form No.5 within 50 days of the accident. After
obtaining all the other details, a detailed accident1
WP No.1961/2023
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
report is required to be filed within 60 days in Form-
VII which had been required to be submitted to the
Claims Tribunal within 90 days from the date of the
accident and the Claims Tribunal is required to treat
the detailed accident report as a claim petition for
compensation under Sub-section (4) of Section 166
of the MV Act.
16. When the DAR is required to be treated as a claim
petition and the said DAR is required to be
submitted within a period of 90 days. In the present
matter, though the amendment came into force on
01.04.2022, admittedly IAR or DAR has not been
filed. If at all, the DAR had been filed and the same
having been brought to the notice of the Claims
Tribunal, the same would have been treated as a
claim petition and the matter proceeded with.
17. The Insurance Company having undertaken to
compensate the injured or the family of the
deceased under the insurance policy, the Insurance
Company having collected premiums thereon,
cannot be urging take technical pleas when the
Insurance company has to discharge a fiduciary role.
20. In the present case, there is a default on part of the
jurisdictional police officer in filing the DAR, which if
it had been filed would have been within time, the
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
same being required to be filed within 90 days.
Therefore, there could be no question of even
condonation of delay. The Insurance Company
cannot also take advantage of the default on part of
the investigating officer in not filing the accident
reports more particularly the DAR.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimla
Devi & Others vs. National Insurance Company
Limited & others reported in [2019 Kant MAC 60 (SC)]
has observed as under:
17. Section 158 of the Act casts a duty on a person
driving a motor vehicle to produce certain
certificates, driving licence and permit on being
required by a police officer to do so in relation to the
use of the vehicle. Subsection (6), which was added
by way of amendment in 1994 to Section 158 casts a
duty on the officer incharge of the police station to
forward a copy of the information (FIR)/report
regarding any accident involving death or bodily
injury to any person within 30 days from the date of
information to the Claim Tribunal having jurisdiction
and also send one copy to the concerned insurer.
This subsection also casts a duty on the owner of the
offending vehicle, if a copy of the information is
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
made available to him, to forward the same to the
Claims Tribunal and the insurer of the vehicle.
18. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the
report of the accident on its receipt as if it is an
application made by the claimant for award of the
compensation to him under the Act by virtue of
Section 166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction
to decide such application on merits in accordance
with law.
19. The object of Section 158(6) read with Section
166(4) of the Act is essentially to reduce the period
of pendency of claim case and quicken the process of
determination of compensation amount by making it
mandatory for registration of motor accident claim
within one month from the date of receipt of FIR of
the accident without the claimants having to file a
claim petition. (See Jai Prakash vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (2) SCC 607).
24. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned, it
also deals with payment of compensation. Section
168 of the Act deals with award of the Claims
Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Act provides
procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. As has
been held by this Court (Three Judge Bench), the
claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suit nor
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
an adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a
proceeding in terms of and regulated by the
provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a
complete Code in itself. (See United India Insurance
Company Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors., 2011 (10) SCC
509).
14. In case claim petitions filed beyond the period
of six months from the date of accident are not
entertained, then the claimants have to invoke jurisdiction
of Civil Court to claim compensation based on the tortious
liability and have to follow the procedure of civil suits and
make payment of court fee on claim amount, that was not
the intention of the legislature when the M.V.Act has been
brought into force providing remedy to the claimants seek
compensation, without payment of court fee and
expeditious disposal of their claim petitions.
15. The Kerala High Court in the case of Akshay
Raj vs. Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative
Department reported in 2023 Live Law (Ker) 50
wherein the contention of the Insurance Company that the
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
delay in filing the claim petition cannot be condoned, had
been rejected and the said matter is now pending before
the Hon’ble Apex Court.
16. The Madras High Court in the case of
Malrawan vs. Praveen Travels reported in 2023 SCC
Online Madras 5467 has considered this aspect and held
that the period of six months limitation would arise only in
a case where no FIR has been registered by the police and
no report has been sent or uploaded. An appeal having
been filed challenging the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Madras High Court has been dismissed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.02.2024.
17. In the present cases, there is a default on part
of the jurisdictional police officer in filing the DAR, which if
it had been filed would have been within time, the same
being required to be filed within 90 days. Therefore, there
could be no question of even condonation of delay. The
Insurance Company cannot also take advantage of the
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4606
WP No. 202613 of 2024
C/W WP No. 202619 of 2024
WP No. 203335 of 2024
HC-KAR AND WP No.203459 of 2024
default on part of the investigating officer in not filing the
accident reports more particularly the DAR.
18. In view of the above, I am of the considered
opinion that the above petitions filed by the Insurance
Company are not maintainable so condonation of delay
granted by the Tribunal is proper and correct and so also
the order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application
filed by the Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11
read with Section 151 and Section 166(3) of the M.V.Act.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, above writ petitions
stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18
CT;VK