Time Limit for Filing a Written Statement in Section 166 Claim Proceedings Before Maharashtra Tribunals

A recurring question before insurers, vehicle owners, and claimants in Maharashtra is whether there is a fixed deadline for the respondent — usually the insurance company or the vehicle owner — to file a written statement in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Unlike civil suits, where the Civil Procedure Code prescribes timelines, the position before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) is far more flexible, and understanding it can make the difference between preserving and losing a statutory defence.

The Short Answer

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing a written statement before a Claims Tribunal. No provision of the Act, nor the rules framed thereunder, imposes a rigid deadline comparable to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. Tribunals in Maharashtra generally allow written statements to be taken on record even after delay, often subject to costs, though repeated default may result in forfeiture of the right to file.

Why the Strict CPC Timeline Does Not Apply

The starting point is the nature of the proceedings themselves. Applications under Section 166 are summary in character. The Supreme Court has held that an application under the Act must be decided on the evidence led before the Tribunal, and that the rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials cannot be imported into a Section 166 proceeding because it is summary in nature 2023 2 Supreme 173.

Flowing from this, procedural rules of civil suits do not apply with rigidity. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which fixes a 30-day timeline for filing written statements, has been held by the Supreme Court to be directory rather than mandatory in disputes that are not governed by the Commercial Courts Act. The Court observed that although the provision is directory, parties cannot file written statements at their sweet will, and the mandatory timeline with no discretion to condone delay applies only to commercial disputes 2020 1 Supreme 409. A similar principle was laid down in the election petition context, where the Court held that the 90-day limit under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and the power to extend time is not completely taken away, since procedural rules exist to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing 2005 3 Supreme 603.

By analogy, MACT respondents in Maharashtra can generally argue that a delayed written statement should be accepted, particularly where the defence goes to the root of the insurer's liability under Sections 147 and 149 of the Act.

Distinguishing Limitation for the Claim Petition Itself

It is important not to conflate the written statement timeline with the limitation for filing the claim petition:

• Section 166(3), which prescribes a six-month limitation for claim applications, was introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, but was notified and brought into force only on 1 April 2022 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1565.
• For accidents occurring before that date, claim petitions are not barred by limitation, and delays can be condoned 2026 0 Supreme(Gau) 525.
• Even after the amendment, courts treat the Act as a beneficial enactment and hold that claimants should not be deprived of relief due to technicalities, permitting condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1490.
• However, the absence of a statutory limit does not mean claims can be filed indefinitely. The Supreme Court has held that only a live and surviving claim is genuine, and a 28-year delay was held not to be a reasonable period 2017 3 Supreme 98.

A related safeguard exists under Section 166(4): where a claimant moves an application within six months, it may be treated as an application under Section 166(4) and cannot be dismissed merely on account of Section 166(3) 2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 11460.

Practical Position Before Maharashtra Tribunals

In everyday practice, tribunals grant successive opportunities for filing written statements, sometimes marking an adjournment as the last opportunity — as happened in one claim petition where the insurer's opportunity to file the written statement was deferred with a clear warning 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 49066. This reflects the working balance between procedural discipline and the summary, welfare-oriented character of the proceedings.

Key practical points:

• No statutory bar: A written statement filed late is not invalid merely because of delay; the tribunal has discretion to accept it, often with costs.
• Forfeiture is possible but has limits: Even where a party's right to file a written statement is forfeited, the tribunal is not obliged to decide in the claimant's favour if the claimant fails to establish the case; forfeiture does not amount to an admission of all pleadings

  Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel VS S. J. R. Prime Corporation Private Limited - Supreme Court (2024)

  .
• Participation survives non-filing: A respondent who has not filed a written statement typically retains the right to cross-examine witnesses and contest quantum.
• Amended petitions: If the claim petition is amended, the respondent may be entitled to file an additional written statement confined to the new matters introduced 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 256.
• Expedition matters: Tribunals are expected to adopt a proactive approach and dispose of claims with urgency, given the social welfare purpose of the Act 2011 7 Supreme 500.

The Commercial Dispute Exception

The strict 120-day regime applies only to commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, where the court becomes functus officio to accept a written statement after 120 days

Veeline Holdings Private Limited VS Khetawat Properties Limited - Current Civil Cases (2025)

Recommendations for Parties

1. Insurers and vehicle owners: File the written statement promptly, ideally within 30 days of service of notice. Delay invites costs and, in cases of repeated default despite opportunities, forfeiture of the right to file 2020 1 Supreme 409.
2. Claimants: Be aware that for accidents after 1 April 2022, the six-month limitation under Section 166(3) applies, while earlier accidents face no statutory bar but must be filed within a reasonable time.
3. Practitioners: If delay is unavoidable, move a formal application with an affidavit explaining the cause, and rely on the directory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 and the beneficial character of the Act.
4. All parties: Remember that statutory defences under Section 149(2) available to insurers in Section 166 proceedings must be pleaded; proceedings under Section 140 are separate and such defences are not entertainable there 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18645.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

There is generally no fixed statutory time limit for filing a written statement in Section 166 proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Maharashtra. The summary nature of these proceedings, the directory character of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in non-commercial disputes, and the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act together give tribunals ample discretion to accept delayed written statements, usually with costs. That discretion is not unlimited — repeated default can lead to forfeiture — but even then, the respondent is not automatically shut out from participating in the inquiry. The six-month limitation that many practitioners cite relates to the claim petition under Section 166(3), which took effect only from 1 April 2022, not to written statements. Because tribunal practice varies, parties should verify the specific procedural expectations of the tribunal concerned, and this article is intended as general information rather than advice on any individual case.