HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( 227} N0. 4939/2011 PETITIONER RBSPONDENT N0. 2 RESPONDEN-ra VERSUS 1. IFFCO Tokio Gcneral Insurance Co. Lnnited, Braach Raipur, Lal Gan.ga Shopping Mal 345-347, M.I.G. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chliattisgarh. Poshaa Sahu, son of Shri Indraraan Sahu, aged bout 23 years, resident of ViUage Sui^i, Thana. Lal Bag, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Gajendra Kuniar, son of Shri Babulal Sahu, aged about 25 years, resident of ViUage Siirgi, Thaaa Lal Bag, TehsU aad District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (OWNER). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.j •o RESPONDENT N0. 1 2. Present:- Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner, Respondents not noticed. OR&L- ORDBR (Passedoa 25/08/2011) 1. By fhis petition under Article 227 of the ConsUtution of India petitioner has chatlenged the legality a&d propriety of fhe order dated 29/1/2011 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Dui^, Cbliattisgarh (in short 'the Tribunal') in. claiin case No. 198/2011 whereby written stateruent filed beyond ffae period of 90 days has not been taken on record on the basis of appUcation ffled on behalf of the claimant under Order 8 Rule 1 oftlie Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (ia short 'the Code'). 2. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for ftie petitioner is heard, 3, Order impugned, copy of aaotlier order dated 7/5/2011 filed on behalf of the petitioner perused whereby specific application for taking writteu statem.ent on record has been disinissed by fhe Tribunal below. Rr r--,;—0^ '•1 %».1 8 "^g5SS<s8| | l"£a;»Ao»": •/- 4. Order dated 29/1/2011 reveal that petitioner has filed written stateinent on behalf of the Insuiauce Couipany after 90 days but on the basis of appUcation filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code Court below has strikiag out the defense of present petitioner/defendaut and even after fiting of appUcation for taking written stateraent on record Court below has disinissed the aforesaid application vide order dated 7/5/2011. '5. On due consideration liinitation of 90 days for filing written stateraent is not sine-tjuo-non and even ia civil suit and same is extendable ia appropriate cases as held in case ofSalem Advocate Bar Association, TataU Nadu v. Union of India, reported ui AIR 2005 SC 3353 strict compliance of Code of CivU Procedure, 1908 is not necessaiy in claiin cases aad Court are required to Uberal approach ia procedural law especiaUy iu. claun cases when fhe liability fastened upon Insuiance Coinpany i.e. present petitioner, by closiug r^ht to defend/ strikuig out tfae defense of fhe petitioner Court below has cominitted illegality. Considermg fhe copy of the order-sheets in which it appears that Court is serious for early disposal of claim petition. Further observance of procedural law aud issuauce of notice to fhe respondents would only be futile exercise. ConsequenUy, petition is aUowed and order iinpugned relating to closing of r^ht to defend of the petitioner and refusiag to accept written stateuient is set-aside to that extent aad petitioner is permitted to proceed further on fhe basis of its written statenient. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P. Sharma judge ^ ^^