#written statement delay

The NCDRC has ruled that the 45-day statutory limit for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 cannot be extended unless exceptional circumstances are proven - setting a high bar for procedural compliance. This binds all litigants in consumer forums, reinforcing that delay cannot be condoned merely due to administrative oversight or routine hardship.

The Karnataka High Court has held that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals must examine the merits of a written statement filed after the 90-day limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, rejecting mechanical application of procedural timelines. This reinforces substantive justice in insurance claims, ensuring insurers are not deprived of defense rights due to technical delays, especially where no prejudice is shown to claimants.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that courts retain discretion to permit filing of written statements beyond the 120-day limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, subject to payment of costs. The ruling underscores that procedural timelines are not absolute and can be relaxed in the interest of justice, provided the delay is adequately compensated.

HP High Court rules that the State, as a defendant, deserves a final chance to file a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, even after delay, if the record is in Urdu and translation issues caused the lapse. The court imposes ₹5,000 costs, balancing procedural fairness with the government’s right to defend land disputes.