1 2026:CGHC:17490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1143 of 2025 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office At, Second Floor, Simran Tower Near Lic Building Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin -492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Bhime W/o Late Deva Aged About 35 Years (Wife Of Deceased) R/o Village Patelpara, Jangampal, Badegadam Tehsil Katekalyaam Police Station Togpal District- Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Reeta D/o Late Deva Aged About 13 Years Minors Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 (Daughter Of Deceased) R/o Village Patelpara, Jangampal, Badegadam Tehsil Katekalyaam Police Station Togpal District- Dantewada (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Savita D/o Late Deva Aged About 10 Years Mimors Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1(Daughter Of Deceased) R/o Village Patelpara, Jangampal, Badegadam Tehsil Katekalyaam Police Station Togpal District- Dantewada (C.G.) 2 4 - Mohan Kumar Mandvi S/o Late Deva Ram Aged About 5 Years Minors Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 (Son Of Deceased) R/o Village Patelpara, Jangampal, Badegadam Tehsil Katekalyaam Police Station Togpal District- Dantewada (C.G.) 5 - Durgeh Mandvi S/o Late Deva Ram Aged About 2 Years Minors Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 (Son Of Deceased) R/o Village Patelpara, Jangampal, Badegadam Tehsil Katekalyaam Police Station Togpal District- Dantewada (C.G.) 6 - Kala S/o Late Naga (Brother Of Deceased) R/o Village Patelpara, Jangampal, Badegadam Tehsil Katekalyaam Police Station Togpal District- Dantewada (C.G.) (Claimants) 7 - Garjot Singh S/o Bachittar Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 43 Shyam Nagar, Redy Colony, Ravigram Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Pin - 492006 (Driver / Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-6 For Respondent No. 7 : : Ms. Asha Singh Poya on behalf of ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate Ms. Uttara Dewangan, Advocate appearing through VC. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner/ insurance company 3 against the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 284/2024 whereby the right to file written statement of the petitioner/insurance company has been forfeited. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the non-applicant no. 2 before the learned Claims Tribunal. The respondent no. 01 to 06 are prosecuting the claim case for compensation against death of the husband of the respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 02 to 05 and brother of respondent no. 06 namely Deva Madwi who died in an accident on 27.10.2024 by the offending vehicle truck bearing registration no. CG 04 NS 9413. The said claim case was filed by the claimants on 21.11.2024 before the learned Claims Tribunal in which the non-applicant no. 2/insurance company made their appearance on 18.02.2025. Thereafter they sought time to file their written statement. On 08.05.2025 the claimants had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in claim application which was allowed on 19.06.2025. Again on 09.07.2025 the insurance company sought time to file their written statement however, due to their departmental process they could not file their written submissions. Ultimately on 06.08.2025 when they again sought time to file written statement, their request has been rejected and their right to file written statement has been forfeited by the learned Claims Tribunal, holding that the reasons assigned by the non-applicant no. 2 insurance company is not 4 bonafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the filing of the written statement within 90 days is not mandatory but is a discretionary. Instead of forfeiting the right of the insurance company the opposite party may be compensated by awarding appropriate cost. Although the motor vehicle act is a beneficial law however the non applicant no. 2 insurance company cannot be deprived by filing their written statement and to raise their defence. She would further submit that the insurance company may be permitted to file their written submission by awarding appropriate cost. 4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. In the case of Branch Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance Company vs. Suraj Bai Chauhan and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online Chh 7652, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held in para 6 as under: 6. Further, in the matter of Sandeep Thapar V. SME Technologies Private Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 302, it has been held that the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is directory in nature and the following observation has been made:- 5 “7…………….(iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 to Order 8 CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not completely taken away.” 7. Since the filing of the written statement within the prescribed time is directory and not mandatory, forfeiting the right of the non- applicant no. 2 insurance company to file written statement would certainly prejudice their defence and therefore it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the Claims Tribunal to grant one opportunity to the petitioner/insurance company to file their written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- payable to the claimants before the Claims Tribunal on the next 6 date of hearing or before the filing of the written statement as the case may be. Ordered accordingly. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is set-aside to the extent as stated above. The interim order stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Madhurima