-: 1 :- wp-2198/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2198 OF 2011. Santosh J. Ranawat. ..Petitioner. Versus Jayantilal S. Ranawat & Anr. ..Respondents. R. S. Tanna i/b Jayesh Madhav Joshi for the petitioner. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 6, 2011. P. C. : 1. By the order dated 31/3/2011, this Court issued notice to the respondents for final disposal of writ petition. The petitioner has filed service affidavit dated 22/7/2011 disclosing that respondent nos.1 & 2 are duly served. The acknowledgment to that effect is also annexed to the service affidavit. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane rejected the petitioner's application at Exhibit-66 in M.A.C. No. 315 of 2007, which was taken out for adjournment to enable the petitioner to secure the presence of her witness and to make arrangement for payment of cost. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : srp -: 2 :- wp-2198/11 3. The petitioner was involved in an accident with a car owned by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2. The petitioner filed M.A.C. No. 315 of 2007 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation against the respondents jointly and severally for the grave injuries suffered by her on account of accident. In the trial proceedings before Tribunal, the petitioner filed her affidavit-of-evidence and was subsequently cross-examined by the respondents. Thereafter several other witnesses were examined by the petitioner, which were cross examined by the Advocates appearing on behalf of respondents. . On 14th February 2011, the petitioner filed an application at Exhibit-65 contending that her son has witnessed the accident however he could not be examined earlier; she prayed that permission be granted to lead oral evidence of her son. This application was granted by the learned Member of MACT on the same day, however, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.1,000/- each to the opponents. Immediately, thereafter on the same day, the petitioner made an application at Exhibit-66 seeking adjournment to enable her to secure the presence of her witness and to make arrangement for payment of cost. Ld. Member, MACT, however, rejected this application on -: 3 :- wp-2198/11 14/2/2011 itself. This order is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. Ld. Member, MACT rejected the petitioner’s application at Exhibit 66 on the ground that the application at Exhibit 65 was allowed thereby permitting the petitioner to examine her son, subject to payment of cost, however, cost is not deposited and application is moved seeking time to deposit the cost. It was also observed that the petitoner’s witness is not present in Court. Ld. Member, MACT observed that the petitioner is not diligent in conducting the matter and therefore application came to be rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petitioner filed application at Exhibit 65 on 14/2/2011 and same was allowed on the same day subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- each to the opponents. The petitioner could not have anticipated that her application would be allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- on the same day. In these circumstances, if the petitioner had sought time to make arrangement for payment of cost, then, the petitioner's action cannot be faulted. The petitioner's witness, i.e., her son was -: 4 :- wp-2198/11 also not present on 14/2/2011 as application at Exhibit 65 was allowed on the same day. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting the matter. In my opinion, the application of the petitioner was just and reasonable, which ought to have been granted. In these circumstances, petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) The impugned order dated 14/2/2011 passed by the Member, MACT, Thane below Exhibit-66 in MCA No. 315 of 2007 is quashed and set aside and petitioner’s application at Exhibit-66 is allowed. (ii) In terms of the order passed by MACT below Exhibit-65, the petitioner shall deposit cost of Rs. 2,000/- in MACT within a period of two weeks from today. (iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the MACT on 20/9/2011 alongwith her witness. (iv) The petitioner shall send a copy of this order to the respondents for information. (RANJIT MORE, J.)