Civil courts retain discretion to accept delayed written statements in exceptional circumstances.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of their son in a road accident.

The insurer did not file its written statement within time, and the Tribunal treated it as not filed.

The insurer then sought permission to file it, explaining that the matter had been under investigation to collect documents and that the written statement had reached its counsel after the limitation period.

The claimants did not oppose the application, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal rejected it, relying on the Karnataka amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

The insurer challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to take the insurer’s written statement on record under the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC

2. Whether the insurer’s explanation for the delay justified granting permission to file the written statement

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident.

The Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024 amended Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 CPC to restrict the filing of written statements beyond the prescribed period.

In Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372 of 2026, decided 28 July 2026, a Co-ordinate Bench read down the amended provisions: the restrictions do not wholly exclude judicial discretion in exceptional cases, and that discretion must be exercised in accordance with the stated principles and upon recording reasons demonstrating exceptional and compelling circumstances.

The Court accepted the insurer’s explanation that the written statement was delayed because the insurer was collecting documents and sent it to counsel only after the prescribed period.

It held that the insurer had shown sufficient cause and applied the read-down interpretation in Basavaraj S. to conclude that the Tribunal had erred in treating the amended rule as preventing acceptance of the written statement.

The Court did not impose the Rs. 5,000 cost sought by the claimants in its final order.