IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6695 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th December, 2009. Smt. Aruna Dhakrey Petitioner through Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate Versus Rajesh and another Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.08.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby an application moved by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 4.2.2009, has been dismissed. The first respondent has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The petitioner has been impleaded in her capacity as owner of the delinquent vehicle while respondent No. 2 has been impleaded as driver thereof. The petitioner's case was that after she had put in appearance on 6.11.2008, she had instructed the driver, namely, respondent No. 2 to contest the claim petition. However, the said driver unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the claim petition and there being none to contest the claim petition on behalf of the respondents that she has now come to know regarding the ex- parte proceedings against her. The Tribunal has dismissed the application by observing that five opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file written statement but she did not opt to do so and has acted in a totally negligent manner. Notice of motion was directed to be served upon the contesting respondent No. 1 – claimant by dasti process. It is reported on the summons that the house in which the respondent – claimant was allegedly residing could not be identified in Rajiv Nagar. The respondent was accordingly ordered to be served through his local counsel, who, as per the report given by the Process Server, has refused to accept the notice by saying that the name of the party is wrongly mentioned and he has no concern with the party. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Memo of Parties mentioned on the dasti notice is correct. It appears that respondent No. 1 – claimant is evading service and does not want to contest this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. There is indeed no doubt that the petitioner has acted in some what negligent manner to the extent that instead contesting the claim petition herself, she depended upon her driver to take all the pleas and contest the claim petition. The petitioner is stated to be an old woman, might be confident that the driver would contest the claim petition and safe-guard her interest as well. The fact is that the driver has unfortunately expired during the pendency of the claim petition. Since the delinquent vehicle is reported to be not insured, in the event of the claim petition being accepted, the entire liability is likely to be fastened upon the petitioner only. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, especially when the respondent – claimant can be suitably compensated with heavy costs on account of the further delay likely to be caused in adjudication of the claim petition, I allow the revision petition; set aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2009 and direct the Tribunal to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to file her written statement before 31.12.2009. Thereafter, only one opportunity be granted to her to cross-examine the claimant's witnesses, if any, followed by another opportunity to lead her entire evidence at her own responsibility, though may be provided assistance of the Court, if any official witness is to be examined. All the three opportunities shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- to be paid as costs to the respondent – claimant. Disposed of. Dasti. December 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE