01Facts
Respondent No. 1 filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident.
¶ 3–6The petitioner-insurer did not file its written statement within time, explaining that it was awaiting completion of an investigation and collection of documents.
¶ 3–6, 11–12It applied to file the statement belatedly; the claimant did not oppose the application, subject to costs.
¶ 3–6, 11–12The Tribunal rejected it, relying on the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
¶ 3–6, 11–12The insurer challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
¶ 3–6, 11–1202Issues
i.Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing permission to the insurer to file a written statement after the prescribed period
¶ 5, 11–12ii.Whether the insurer had shown sufficient cause to warrant allowing the delayed written statement under the principles stated in Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka
¶ 8, 13–1503Law Applied
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents.
¶ 3The Court considered Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended in Karnataka by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024.
¶ 13–14Relying on Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372 of 2026 (decided 28 July 2026), it noted that the amended provisions had been read down: the prescribed consequences for delay do not wholly exclude judicial discretion in exceptional cases where refusal would cause grave miscarriage of justice.
¶ 13–14That discretion is to be exercised only in strict accordance with the stated principles and upon recording reasons demonstrating exceptional and compelling circumstances.
¶ 13–14Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 122Section 123Section 124Section 125Section 126Section 127
04Reasoning
The insurer explained that the delay arose because the matter was under investigation and it received the written statement only after the limitation period had expired; the Court accepted that the failure to file in time was not intentional.
¶ 4, 12, 15The claimant did not oppose permission, requesting only costs.
¶ 9Applying the approach in Basavaraj S., the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the application and that the insurer had shown sufficient cause for the delay.
¶ 13–1605Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 4 November 2025.
¶ 17It allowed I.A. No. 1, subject to the insurer paying costs of ₹5,000 to the claimant before the Tribunal by the next hearing date, and directed that the written statement be taken on record.
¶ 17Original Court PDF
THE MANAGERvsASIF ALI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
