Order VIII Rule 1 CPC | MACTs Cannot Reject Written Statements Beyond 90 Days Without Considering Merits : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) retain discretion to accept written statements filed beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), even in the absence of explicit condonation provisions. This judgment underscores that procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice, particularly in compensation claims where financial stakes are high for insurers and claimants alike.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., was impleaded as a respondent in Motor Vehicle Claim (MVC) No. 1689/2023 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi. The claimant, Siddhaling (wife of the deceased Baragali), sought compensation of Rs. 56,75,000 for the death of her husband in a road traffic accident involving a tipper lorry (Reg. No. KA-28-B-5969). The petitioner-insurer failed to file its written statement within the 90-day period stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and subsequently filed Interlocutory Application No. V under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the written statement. The Trial Court rejected this application by order dated 04.11.2025, prompting the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Key Facts

• 16.10.2024: Notice of the claim petition served on the petitioner-insurer.
• 22.02.2025: Petitioner appeared before the Tribunal.
• 22.03.2025: Tribunal noted that the written statement was not filed.
• 07.11.2025: Petitioner filed I.A. No. V under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the written statement, citing an internal investigation into the claim’s authenticity as the reason for delay.
• 04.11.2025: Trial Court rejected the application, relying on the Commercial Courts Act (though misplaced, as noted by the High Court).

Procedural History

• MVC No. 1689/2023: Claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 before MACT, Kalaburagi.
• 04.11.2025: Trial Court rejected I.A. No. V (application for filing written statement).
• WP No. 203753/2025: Present writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the Trial Court’s order.
• 11.06.2026: High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the Trial Court’s order dated 04.11.2025.
• Permission to file the written statement.
• Directions to the Tribunal to proceed with the matter on merits.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can reject an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file a written statement beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, without considering the merits of the delay or the substantive rights of the parties.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Cited the co-ordinate Bench judgment in WP No. 203746/2025 (disposed of on 25.11.2025), which held that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, and that Tribunals retain inherent power to accept delayed written statements.
• Argued that the delay was due to an internal investigation into the claim’s authenticity, a legitimate administrative reason.
• Contended that the Trial Court’s reliance on the Commercial Courts Act was misplaced, as the Act does not apply to MACT proceedings.

For the Respondents

• Opposed the petition, arguing that the delay was not satisfactorily explained.
• However, submitted that if the Tribunal were directed to accept the written statement and dispose of the matter on merits within a time-bound manner, the purpose of justice would be served.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kailash v. Nanhku and Others ((2005) 4 SCC 480), which held that:

"Though Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and its proviso cast an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed time, the provisions do not specifically take away the power of the Court to accept a written statement filed beyond the stipulated period. The provisions are directory, not mandatory, and the condonation of delay shall be considered depending on the facts of each case."

The Court observed that:

1. The petitioner had entered appearance on 22.02.2025, and the Tribunal noted the non-filing of the written statement on 22.03.2025, which was still within the 90-day period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
2. The petitioner sought permission to file the written statement on 07.11.2025, citing an internal investigation into the claim’s authenticity as the reason for delay.
3. The Trial Court’s reliance on the Commercial Courts Act was misconceived, as the Act does not govern MACT proceedings.
4. The financial impact of the compensation claim on the petitioner-insurer necessitated a merits-based adjudication, rather than a procedural dismissal.

The Court emphasized that substantive justice must prevail over procedural technicalities, particularly in cases involving compensation claims where the stakes are high for both insurers and claimants.

The Verdict

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 04.11.2025. The key directions issued were:

• I.A. No. V filed by the petitioner stands allowed.
• The MACT is directed to receive the written statement filed by the petitioner.
• The Tribunal must proceed further in the matter and dispose of the proceedings expeditiously.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Tribunals Must Exercise Discretion, Not Rigidity

• Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory: Tribunals cannot reject applications for filing written statements beyond 90 days without considering the merits of the delay. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kailash v. Nanhku binds all lower courts to adopt a flexible approach.
• Internal investigations are valid grounds for delay: Insurers can cite administrative reasons, such as internal enquiries into claim authenticity, to justify delays in filing written statements.

Procedural Safeguards for Insurers

• No automatic rejection: Tribunals must record reasons for rejecting applications under Section 151 CPC and cannot rely on misplaced statutory provisions (e.g., Commercial Courts Act).
• Time-bound adjudication: While accepting delayed written statements, Tribunals must ensure expeditious disposal of claims to balance the interests of claimants and insurers.

Implications for Claimants

• No prejudice from delay: Claimants cannot argue that a delayed written statement prejudices their case unless they demonstrate specific harm (e.g., inability to respond to new pleas).
• Focus on merits: Claimants should prepare for substantive arguments rather than relying on procedural defaults by insurers.