Courts retain discretion to accept late written statements in exceptional, compelling circumstances.

Respondent No. 1 filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a road accident.

The petitioner-insurer did not file its written statement within time; it later sought permission to do so, explaining that the matter was under investigation to collect documents and the insurer sent the written statement after the prescribed period.

Respondent No. 1 did not oppose the application.

The Tribunal rejected it in view of the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

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

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the insurer’s application to file a written statement after the prescribed period, despite the explanation given and the claimant’s no-objection.

2. Whether the discretion to receive a written statement beyond the prescribed period was preserved under the Karnataka amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as read down by a Co-ordinate Bench.

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

The Court considered Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 CPC, as amended by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024.

Relying on Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372 of 2026 (disposed of on 28 July 2026), it noted that the amended provisions had been read down so that they did not completely exclude judicial discretion in exceptionally rare cases where refusal would cause grave miscarriage of justice.

That discretion must be exercised in strict adherence to the stated principles and only where exceptional and compelling circumstances are shown, with reasons recorded.

The insurer’s explanation was that it needed time to investigate and collect documents, and that the written statement was sent only after the prescribed period; the Court accepted that the delay was not intentional.

Applying the read-down construction in Basavaraj S., the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the application solely by reference to the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

It found sufficient cause to permit the written statement to be received, particularly since the claimant did not oppose the application.

It allowed I.A. No. 1 and directed that the insurer’s written statement be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of ₹2,000 to respondent No. 1 on the next date of hearing before the Tribunal.