Courts retain discretion to accept belated written statements in exceptional cases upon sufficient cause.

The claimants in two separate proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sought compensation for injuries sustained in road accidents.

The insurer did not file written statements within time, and the Tribunal treated them as not filed.

The insurer then applied for permission to file written statements, explaining that the claims were under investigation and that the documents and written statements reached it after the limitation period.

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

The Tribunal rejected the applications relying on the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The insurer challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to receive the insurer’s written statements beyond the prescribed period, despite the explanation for the delay and the claimants’ lack of opposition.

2. Whether, in light of the Karnataka High Court’s reading down of the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the insurer’s applications could be allowed in these circumstances.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for the claimants’ compensation petitions.

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as amended by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, restricts 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 (disposed of 28 July 2026), the High Court read down the relevant provisions: the statutory language does not entirely exclude judicial discretion in exceptionally rare cases, and that discretion may be exercised only in strict accordance with the judgment’s principles and upon recording reasons demonstrating exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Article 227 was invoked as the basis for supervisory review of the Tribunal’s orders.

The Court accepted that the insurer had explained the delay by stating that the claims were under investigation and that the written statements were sent only after the prescribed period had expired; it also noted that filing had not been intentional.

Applying the read-down in Basavaraj S., the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in treating the amended provision as requiring rejection, because the insurer had shown sufficient cause for the delay.

It therefore found the impugned orders arbitrary and erroneous.

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders dated 23 December 2025 and 19 January 2026, and allowed the insurer’s applications to file written statements.

The written statements in both claim proceedings were directed to be taken on record.