Civil Revision No.4829 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4829 of 2011 Date of Decision:11.08.2011 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ......Petitioner Versus Smt.Muskan and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Smt.Muskan widow of Iqbal and others-, filed a claim-petition against Sachin Rana Nagar, driver, M/s Super Roadlines, owner of the offending vehicle and M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd., invoking the provisions of Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Since, the petitioner-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. did not file the written statement, despite many opportunities, including the last opportunity, so, the MACT struck off its defence, by virtue of impugned order dated 03.09.2010(Annexure P-1). 2. Faced with the situation, petitioner-Insurance Company moved an application(Annexure P-2), for reviewing the order(Annexure P-1), which was dismissed as well by the MACT, by means of impugned order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-3). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-3), the petitioner-Insurance Company preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No.4829 of 2011 2 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent- claimants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of their claim petition, particularly when they can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the respondent-claimants filed a claim-petition against the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the petitioner- Insurance Company. Since, the petitioner-Insurance Company did not file the written statement, so, the MACT struck off its defence. The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the MACT in this regard was, that many opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner-Insurance Company, to file the written statement, but in vain. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but that ipso facto is not a ground to deny the petitioner-Insurance Company, to file the written statement. Taking into consideration the interest of the claimants as well as the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, to me, the MACT ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner-Insurance Company, to file the written statement, subject to costs, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-claimants in this behalf, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. More so, when the MACT case is at a very initial stage. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The MACT is directed to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner-Insurance Civil Revision No.4829 of 2011 3 Company, to file the written statement and to participate in the proceedings. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs/compensation, to be paid by the petitioner-Insurance Company to the respondent-claimants. Needless to mention that, the MACT would ensure the payment of costs/compensation personally to the claimants. The payment of costs/compensation would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case by the petitioner-Insurance Company. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned MACT forthwith, for strict compliance. August 11, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE