Karnataka HC Lets Insurer File Late Defence in 2024 Accident Claim, Holds 2025 CPC Amendment Prospective

Respondent No. 1 filed MVC No. 13/2025 seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

The Insurance Company applied under Section 151 CPC for permission to file its written statement, explaining that internal investigation and collection of documents had caused delay.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application because the written statement was filed beyond the prescribed period and in view of the 2025 amendment to the CPC.

The claim petition had been filed on 14 June 2024, before the amendment came into force on 5 June 2025.

The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC governs the filing of written statements; the Court relied on Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480, in permitting a written statement to be received in the circumstances of the case.

The Court noted that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and that the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules apply specified CPC provisions.

Karnataka Act No. 40 of 2025 amended the written-statement timeline by imposing a 120-day outer limit from service of summons, after which the right to file is forfeited.

Following T. Gayathri v. Prabhijit Dhariwal, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2419, the Court held that this amendment applies prospectively to suits filed on or after 5 June 2025.

The Court followed the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 203746 of 2025, which had allowed a late written statement in similar circumstances by relying on Kailash v. Nanhku.

It also held that the 2025 amendment did not govern this matter because the claim petition was filed on 14 June 2024, before the amendment’s commencement date; applying it retrospectively, as the Tribunal had done, was contrary to the coordinate Bench’s ruling in T. Gayathri.

The claimant did not dispute the earlier coordinate Bench decision and supported permitting the Insurance Company to file its defence.

The parties’ contentions were left open for consideration before the Tribunal.