CRP 103/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. AC Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P Sundi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. SK Das, learned counsel appeari ng for the respondent No.2 and Mr. BK Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. The petitioner, who is the claimant in MAC Case No.13/1991, by the present petit ion has challenged the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by the learned Mem ber, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Sonitpur at Tezpur in the aforesaid MA C Case dismissing the petition No.158/2008, dated 19th March, 2008 praying for a further chance to produce his witnesses for cross-examination by the owner of t he vehicle, namely the present respondent No.1. The proceeding in MAC Case No.13/1991 earlier proceeded ex-parte against the own er of the vehicle/respondent Nos.1 and the respondent No.2. The said proceeding, however, was contested by the present respondent No.3, i.e. the Insurance Compa ny. An award dated 10th May, 1996 thereafter, was passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. An application then was filed by the present re spondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, together with an application under Sect ion 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing such application praying for recalling the award dated 10th May, 1996. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and o n appreciation of the materials available on record vide order dated 20th July, 2001 set aside the said ex-parte award passed against the owner of the vehicle a nd restored the said proceeding allowing the respondent No.1 to file the written statement and accordingly, the written statement was filed. Prior to passing of the award on 10th May, 1996, 4(four) witnesses were examined by the claimant, who were cross-examined by the Insurance Company. After the o rder dated 20th July, 2001, those witnesses were required to be produced for cro ss-examination by the owner/ respondent No.1, for which a number of adjournments were granted to the present petitioners/claimant, who, however, has failed to p roduce those witnesses for cross-examination. When the case was fixed on 31st M arch, 2007, an application was filed seeking adjournment on the ground of the il lness, which was rejected on the ground that a number of adjournments have alrea dy been granted. This necessitated filing of another application by the petitio ner/claimant on 19th March, 2008 praying for allowing him to produce those witne sses for cross-examination by the respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle, which ha s been rejected vide order dated 4th September, 2008. It appears from the said order dated 4th September, 2008 that the learned Member has refused to entertain the said application on the ground that it has no auth ority to set aside the earlier order and the petition has not been verified and supported by affidavit as required under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. The Tribunal, however, has ignored the fact that though the petitioner in the pe tition dated 19th March, 2008 prayed for setting aside the order dated 31st Marc h, 2007, in fact the said petition was filed for recalling/reviewing the order d ated 31st March, 2007. The Tribunal also ought not to have rejected the said ap plication on technical ground that it was not verified and supported by an affid avit, as required under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, which provisions is not applicable in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. In any case, such a technical app roach in the matter of the claim application filed under the provisions of the M otor Vehicles Act, 1988 should always be avoided. The effect of the order of the learned Tribunal is that the evidence adduced by the petitioner/claimant would be expunged, as they have not been produced for cr oss-examination by the owner/respondent No.1.The learned Tribunal, in view of th e aforesaid position, ought to have given a last chance to the petitioner to pro duce the witnesses for cross-examination by the respondent No.1/the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above, the orders dated 31st March, 2007 and 4th September, 2008 are set aside. The petitioner is granted one more chance, as the last chance, t o produce the witnesses for cross-examination by the owner of the vehicle/ respo ndent No.1, date for which shall be fixed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In the event, the petitioner does not produce those witnesses for cross-examination on the date to be fixed, no further chance shall be grante d to him. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 24t h January, 2012. The revision petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.