1 WP 8955/09 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8955 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. A.M.G. Khale i/b Mr. M.B. Kotak for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Bhosale, A.G.P. for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 26th July 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 10 August 2009 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting the petitioners’ application dated 20 July 2009. 2 WP 8955/09 4. The petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased who suffered injuries in the accident. After recording of the evidence of the petitioners, the matter was posted on 20 July 2009 for further evidence of the petitioners. At that time, counsel for the respondent was not present and the matter was adjourned. The petitioners’ witness, namely the employer, consequently was not examined for proving the salary. The Court thereafter closed the evidence of the petitioners. Immediately on the next day, the petitioners applied for setting aside of the order of closure of their evidence and for permission to examine the employer. That application was rejected. 5. The order rejecting the application is laconic. It does not give any reasons for rejection of the application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the 3 WP 8955/09 petitioners to examine the employer. 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- as a condition precedent. The petitioners are permitted to examine the employer provided he keeps the employer present on the next date to be fixed by the Tribunal for that purpose. It is clarified that if the petitioners fail to keep the witness present on the date to be fixed by the Tribunal for that purpose, the impugned order shall stand confirmed and the writ petition shall stand dismissed. Costs of Rs.1,000/- shall be deposited in the Tribunal to be paid to the other side. 6. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)