Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 4th, 2011 Baljinder Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus Smt. Bimla Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending car, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the defence of the petitioners has been struck off. Smt. Bimla Devi and others had brought a claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on the death of Devi Dutta. In the said claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 have been precluded from filing written statement by way of the impugned order. The impugned order reads as under:- Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2011 2 .. “ Written statement on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 not filed. Many opportunities have been afforded to respondents no.1 and 2 to file the written statement. A period of more than 90 days has elapsed. There is no justification for further adjourning the case for filing the written statement by respondents no.1 and 2. So, the defence of respondent no.1 and 2 to file the written statement is hereby struck off. To come up on 14.9.2011 for filing the replication, if any and issues.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri J.S.Cooner, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. It is true that a period of more than 90 days had elapsed without the petitioners bringing a written statement opposing the claim case brought against them. Observing that many opportunities have been afforded to respondents No.1 and 2 to file the written statement, learned Tribunal has found that there was no justification for further adjournment of the case for filing written statement by respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, their defence was struck off. It is not apparent from the impugned order as to why learned Tribunal did not think of imposing punitive costs on the respondents for their inability to bring their written statement on the record. Although period of 90 days had elapsed and the petitioners failed to submit their written statement, yet a very valuable right of the respondents has been taken away by way of this order. Learned Tribunal should have kept in mind the well cherished principle that no one should be condemned unheard and should Civil Revision No. 6139 of 2011 3 .. have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement subject to payment of costs. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The revision petition is, consequently, allowed directing learned Tribunal to afford one opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 4th, 2011 som