Karnataka HC Lets HDFC ERGO File Late Defence In Motor Accident Claim Seeking ₹45 Lakh

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal ought to have permitted the insurer to file its written statement despite the delay attributed to its internal investigation.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Tribunal to take the insurer’s written statement on record, proceed in accordance with law, and dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible.

01Facts

Rohit filed MVC No. 312/2025 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of ₹45,00,000, with interest and costs, from the respondents.

p. 3

HDFC ERGO applied under Section 151 CPC for permission to file a written statement, explaining that time was needed for the insurer’s internal investigation and collection of documents.

p. 4 · p. 6

The Tribunal rejected the application, and the insurer challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

p. 3 · p. 4

The judgment refers to the impugned order as dated 4 November 2025, although the relief clause identifies it as dated 11 November 2025.

p. 2 · p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal ought to have permitted the insurer to file its written statement despite the delay attributed to its internal investigation.

p. 4 · p. 6

ii.Whether, in light of the summary nature of the claims proceedings and the cited coordinate-bench decision, the insurer’s written statement should be taken on record.

p. 5 · p. 6

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Section 151 CPC, under which the Tribunal was asked to permit the written statement to be filed, and to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as providing the procedure for Claims Tribunal proceedings, which are summary in nature.

p. 4 · p. 5

Relying on Kailash v. Nanhku and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 480, and a coordinate-bench decision in W.P. No. 203746 of 2025, the Court applied the principle that the time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The insurer attributed its delay to the time required for internal investigation and collection of relevant documents.

p. 4 · p. 6

The Court noted that the claims proceedings were summary and that a coordinate bench had, in materially identical circumstances, directed that the insurer’s written statement be taken on record, relying on Kailash. Applying that approach, the Court concluded that the written statement should be received and the claim petition determined on its merits rather than prevented from proceeding by the delay.

p. 5 · p. 6 · p. 7