1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7753 OF 2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., K.K.Niwas, Lakkad Kot, Near Bus Stand, Jalna, through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.2, LIC Building, CIDCO, Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 Suraiya Jabeen w/o Gulam Rabbani, age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o Bhagya Nagar, Jalna, Taluka and District Jalna. 2 Misbah Naeem Gulam s/o Gulam Rabbani, age: 27 years, Occ: Student, R/o as above. 3 Zaka Naeem s/o Gulam Rabbani, age: 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o as above. 4 Ankush s/o Daulatrao Dethe, age: 42 years, Occ: :Business (Owner of Jeep No.MH-2-B-905) R/o Malalni (KN), Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. 5 Udhav s/o Manohar Hiwale, age: 37 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Asarkheda, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. 6 Sushil s/o Jainarayan Karwa, age: 52 years, occ: Service, Managing Director in Krushidhan 2 Seeds Company Limited, Plot No.D-3, D-6, Additional MIDC Area, Aurangabad Road, Jalna. 7 The Oriental Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Ghandi Chambers, Sarojini Devi Marg, Jalna, District Jalna. Respondents Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher, learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3. At the request of learned Counsel for petitioner, names of Respondents No.4 to 7 are permitted to be deleted from the array of Respondents. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 3 Petitioner is original Respondent No.1 in the claim petition 3 tendered by original claimants – Respondents No.1 to 3 herein claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. One Crore along with interest on account of accidental death of one Gulam Rabbani. It is not necessary to go into factual details of the controversy involved in the matter. It is suffice to note that trial in the matter is being proceeded before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna. It is further informed that there were two applications presented by Respondent No.1 at Exhibits-111 and 114 requesting the Tribunal to issue witness summons to Regional Transport Officer, Jalna, to depose before the Tribunal in respect of issuance of driving license to the driver by name Udhav Hiwale. The second application was tendered at Exhibit-114 requesting the Tribunal to permit the concerned Respondents to place on record certain documents. Both the applications were turned down by the Tribunal, firstly on the ground that necessary suggestion has not been given to the driver and secondly, it is found by the Tribunal that recording of evidence is over and the applications are tendered at a belated stage. 4 Considering all relevant circumstances pointed by the Respondents, and in order to meet the ends of justice, it is desirable to extend further opportunity to the respondents to place their case before the Tribunal. 4 5 Shri Patel, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 3, on instructions, has stated that the original claimants have no serious objection if the applications at Exhibits-111 and 114 are considered favourably. 6 In this view of the matter, there is no impediment in allowing the applications and directing the Tribunal to proceed with the Claim Petition. 7 In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 21.07.2010 below Exhibit-111 and order dated 31.07.2010 below Exhibit-114 in MACP No. 83/2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna, are quashed and set aside. The applications at Exhibit-111 and Exhibit-114 shall be treated to have been allowed. 8 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 3 urges that the Tribunal may be directed to decide the pending claim petition expeditiously. It is informed that recording of evidence is already over and the matter is at the stage of arguments. By virtue of grant of applications, the Tribunal would be required to record evidence of additional witnesses. 5 However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide the pending claim expeditiously. 9 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE adb/wp775310