Karnataka High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

Karnataka HC Lets Insurer File Late Accident-Claim Defence After Document Delay, Applying Read-Down CPC Rule And Requiring ₹5,000 Costs

THE MANAGERv.ASIF ALI

Karnataka HC Lets Insurer File Late Accident-Claim Defence After Document Delay, Applying Read-Down CPC Rule And Requiring ₹5,000 Costs. THE MANAGER vs ASIF ALI. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing permission to the insurer to file a written statement after the prescribed period

The court held

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 4 November 2025.

It also directed

It 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.

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.

¶ 3–6

The 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, 11–12

It applied to file the statement belatedly; the claimant did not oppose the application, subject to costs.

¶ 3–6, 11–12

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

¶ 3–6, 11–12

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

¶ 3–6, 11–12

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing permission to the insurer to file a written statement after the prescribed period

¶ 5, 11–12

ii.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, 13–15

03Law Applied

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents.

¶ 3

The 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.

¶ 13–14

Relying 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.

¶ 13–14

That discretion is to be exercised only in strict accordance with the stated principles and upon recording reasons demonstrating exceptional and compelling circumstances.

¶ 13–14

Provisions 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, 15

The claimant did not oppose permission, requesting only costs.

¶ 9

Applying 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.

¶ 13–16

05Holding

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 4 November 2025.

¶ 17

It 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.

¶ 17
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

THE MANAGERvsASIF ALI

Karnataka High Court · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment