The Karnataka CPC amendment does not absolutely bar late written statements in exceptional cases.

Respondents 1–5 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Laxman Pawar.

The petitioner-insurer did not file its written statement within the prescribed time, and the Tribunal treated it as not filed.

The insurer later sought leave to file the written statement, explaining that the matter had been under investigation for collection of documents and that the statement was received from the insurer after the limitation period.

Although the claimants raised no objection to the application subject to costs, the Tribunal rejected it, relying on the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

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

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

In Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372 of 2026, decided on 28 July 2026, a coordinate Bench read down the relevant provisos: the expressions barring a written statement after the prescribed period do not completely exclude judicial discretion in exceptional cases where refusal would cause grave miscarriage of justice.

That discretion is to be exercised in strict accordance with the principles and guidelines identified in that decision, with reasons demonstrating exceptional and compelling circumstances.

The claim itself arose under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The insurer’s stated reason for delay was that the claim was under investigation and documents were being collected, and that the written statement was sent to it only after the limitation period had expired.

Applying the coordinate Bench’s reading down of the amended CPC provisions, the Court held that the Tribunal could not treat the time limit as eliminating all discretion.

It considered the insurer’s explanation sufficient and found that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the application.

The claimants’ non-objection, subject to costs, was also recorded.

It allowed the insurer’s application subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000 to the claimants before the Tribunal by the next hearing date, and directed that the written statement be taken on record.