1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4354 OF 2009 Annaso Balaso Chakote .. Petitioner versus Jayashri Manohar Petkar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Tejpal Ingale for the petitioner. Mr.Nagesh Chavan for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.K.W.Vitonde for the respondent No.7. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, service of notice to the 6th respondent is dispensed with. 2. The present petitioner is opponent No.1 in a claim petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim is made for claiming compensation on account of death of one Manohar in a fatal accident involving a motor vehicle. The petitioner who is opponent No.1 is the owner of the car in which the deceased was travelling. The 7th respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. Apart from other defences, the insurer has raised the defence that there is reason to believe that at the 2 time of accident the 6th respondent who was driving the car was not possessing valid licence. 3. An application was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal praying that witness summons may be issued to the 6th respondent. It is pointed out that though the 6th respondent was served with the notice of the claim petition he had not appeared. It was submitted that examination of the said respondent was necessary to bring on record the particulars of the driving licence held by him. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 4. After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to examine the 6th respondent. If particulars of the driving licence allegedly held by the 6th respondent are brought on record it will serve the cause of the original claimants as the insurer has taken a special defence. In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The application made by the petitioner at Exhibit 96 is allowed. Accordingly, witness summons be issued. It will be the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that the witness summons is served within reasonable time as hearing of the claim petition cannot be allowed to be prolonged. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)