K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent - basawa presented claim petition in MVC No. 255 of 2003 before the Court of District judge and MACT No. I, Bagalkot claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 26-1-2003. The second respondent-Basavaraj was driving the motor cycle bearing No. KA-23/q 7729 and first respondent-Basawa was pillion rider of the said motor cycle. On presentation of the claim petition, the MACT Issued notice to the petitioner which was received by the insurance company on 24-6-2003. As per the notice, the petitioner was required to appear before the court on 30-6-2003. From 30-6-2003, the case was adjourned to 29-9-2003. On which date, the petitioner -Insurance company filed statement of objections along with an application under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Claims Tribunal to receive the written statement on the ground that the statement filed by the petitioner-Insurance company was beyond 90 days. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court reported in ilr 2003 Kant 3097 : (AIR 2003 Kant 345) (Prasanna Parvathamba Vaidyanatheswara trust represented by its President, Mandya v. M. S. Radhkrishna Dixit) rejected the application filed by the petitioner-Insurance company and therefore, the written statement filed by the petitioner-Company was not accepted. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29-9-2003, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal in rejecting the application of the petitioner, is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. According to him, the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, is not applicable to the case to be dealt with by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal in view of Rule 254 of the karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules' ). Therefore, he requested this Court to set aside the order dated 29-9-2003 passed by the MACT, bagalkot in MVC No. 255 of 2003. ( 3 ) THOUGH the respondents are served, they are unrepresented. Therefore, he requested this Court to set aside the order dated 29-9-2003 passed by the MACT, bagalkot in MVC No. 255 of 2003. ( 3 ) THOUGH the respondents are served, they are unrepresented. Therefore, in this background, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and having heard the matter, this court has to consider whether the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC can be made applicable to the proceedings arising out of motor accident cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and whether the decision reported in ILR (2003) 3 Kant ,3097 : (AIR 2003 Kant 345) (Prasanna Parvathamba Vaidyanatheswara trust represented by its President, Mandya v. M. S. Radhakrishna Dixit) of decision of the Division Bench of this Court, report in ILR (2004) Kant 1399 : (AIR 2004 Kant 246) (A. Sathyapal v. Smt. Yasmin Banu ansari can be made applicable to the facts of this case. ( 4 ) ORDER VIII, Rule 1 of CPC reads as hereunder :" 1. Written Statement : The defendant shall at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, which shall not be beyond thirty days from the date of service of summons on the defendant, present a written statement of his defence," ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the provision of Order viii, Rule 1 and also considering the decision of the Division Bench reported in ILR (2004) Kant 1399 : (AIR 2004 Kant 246) (A. Sathyapal v. Smt. Yasmin Banu Ansari), the defendant has right to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing can extend the time beyond the period of 30 days. But the Court has no power to extend beyond 90 days. ( 6 ) RULE 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 deals with the procedure of holding an enquiry by the Claims Tribunal. Rule 253 deals with the vesting of powers of the Civil Court to the Tribunal. But the Court has no power to extend beyond 90 days. ( 6 ) RULE 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 deals with the procedure of holding an enquiry by the Claims Tribunal. Rule 253 deals with the vesting of powers of the Civil Court to the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, rules 253 and 254 are extracted hereunder :"rule 253:vesting powers of Civil Court to the Tribunal (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 169 every Claims tribunal may exercise all or any of the powers vested in a Civil Court under the following provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, insofar as they may be applicable namely Sections 30, 32, 34, 35, 35-A, 75 (a) and (c), 76, 77, 94, 95, 132, 133, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152 and 153 and 153-B and subject to the provisions of the Section 174. The Claims Tribunal may exercise all or any of the powers of Civil Court as may be necessary in any case for discharging its functions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder ,""rule 254 : Procedure of holding enquiry :the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, so far as may be, applied to the proceedings before every claims Tribunal, namely : (a) Sections 28, 78 and 82. (b) In the First Schedule, Order V Rules 9 to 13 (both inclusive) and 15 to 30 (both inclusive) Order VI, Rules 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18 and Order VIII, Rule 10, Order VIII, Rules 2 to 5 (both Inclusive), 9 and 10, Order IX, Order XI, Rules 12 to 15 (both inclusive), 17 to 21 (both inclusive) and 23; order XII, Rules 1. 2, 3-A, 4, 7 and 9; Order xiii, Rules 3 to 10 (both inclusive ). 2, 3-A, 4, 7 and 9; Order xiii, Rules 3 to 10 (both inclusive ). Order xiv, Rules 2 and 5; Order XVI, Order XVII; order XVIII, Rules 1 to 34 (both inclusive); order XIX, Rules 10 to 12 (both inclusive) and 15 to 18 (both inclusive) : Order XX, rules 1 to 3 (both inclusive), 8, 11 and 20; order XXI: Order XXII, Rules 1 to 7 (both inclusive) and 9; Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3 (both inclusive), Order XXIV: Order XXVI, rules 1 to 8 (both inclusive) and 15 to 18 (both inclusive); Order XXVII: Order XXVIII: order XXIX, Order XXX Rules 1, 3 to 8 (both inclusive) and 10; Order XXXII, Rules 1 to 15 (both inclusive) : Order XXXVII, Rules 1 to 11 (both inclusive) and Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 3 to 5 (both inclusive ). Insofar as the Act and these Rules make no provision or make insufficient provision, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Proce- dure, 1908 shall so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal". ( 7 ) FROM the reading of Rule 253 of the rules, it is clear to me that the Claims Tri- bunal shall have the powers of Civil Court for the purpose of the execution of award, as, if the award is a decree of a Civil Court and sub-Rule 2 of Rule 253 also empowers the Claims Tribunal to exercise all or any of the powers of Civil Court as may be necessary in any case for discharging its functions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, Rule 254 provides that some of the provisions of the CPC are made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims tribunal, As per Rule 254, only Order VIII, ruie 2 to 5 (both inclusive) and Rules 9 and 10 are made applicable while dealing with the application filed by the Claims Tribunal. From this it is clear that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 or the amended provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1a and Order VIII, rules 6 to 8 are not applicable to the cases to be tried by the Claims Tribunal. From this it is clear that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 or the amended provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1a and Order VIII, rules 6 to 8 are not applicable to the cases to be tried by the Claims Tribunal. If Order viii, Rules 1 and 1a of CPC are not applicable to try the cases by the Claims Tribunal, whether the Tribunal can reject the application of the petitioner by following the judgment of this Court rendered under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1. In view of Rule 254 of the Rules, It has to be safely held that provisions of Order VIII. Rule 1 or rule 1a of CPC are not applicable to the cases tried by the Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the judgment delivered by this court in ILR (2004) Kant 1399 : (AIR 2004 Kant 246) (A. Sathyapal v. Smt. Yasmln Banu Ansari) and ILR (2003) kant 3097 : (AIR 2003 Kant 345) (Prasanna parvathamba Vaidyanatheswara Trust represented by its President, Mandya v. M. S. Radhakrishna Dixlt), cannot be made applicable to the Claims Tribunal while dealing with the application for grant of compensation. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29-9-2003 in M. V. C. No. 255/2003 passed by the Hon'ble District judge and Member, MACT-VI, Bagalkot is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner and dispose of MVC case on merits and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.