HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR PETITIONER/: (Non-applicant) RESPONDENTS/: (Applicants) (Non-applicant) (Non-applicant) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.6320 of 2011 Deepak Gawalani S/o Shri Prakash Gawalani, aged about 26 years, R/o Kashyap Colony, Gali No.3, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Kamla Bai Wd/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 35 years, R/o Bhagatpur, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Manjusha D/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 18 years 3. Ku. Gangotri D/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 17 years 4. Ku. Jamotri D/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 7 years 5. Lalchand S/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 14 years 6. Khemchand S/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 13 years 7. Trilokchand S/o Late Balram Chandravanshi, aged about 8 years Respondent no.3 to 7 are minors through guardian mother Kamlabai, Wd/o Balram Chandravanshi, All R/o Bhagatpur, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 8. Ramdayal S/o Jugutram Shyam R/o Village Munmuna P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham 9. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Otwani, counsel for the petitioner. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharnia,_J ORDER (8-11-2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 8-8-2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham in Claim Case Soma No.102/2010, whereby the application for filing written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner herein has been dismissed on the ground that last chance for filing written statement has already been given for 7-5-2011. 2. Issuance of notice to the respondents would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the matter is being decided without issuing notice to the respondents. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents. 4. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, frankly admits and submits that the petitioner herein was under obligation to file written statement or to file application for allowing time to file written statement on or before 7-5-2011, but he has not filed such application. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe further submits that if opportunity of filing written statement to the petitioner is denied, irreparable loss may be caused to him in claim case because, respondents No.1 to 7 herein have filed claim case against owner and driver, 5. Although the petitioner herein was under obligation to file written statement within the stipulated time and positively before the last time granted to him, but he has not filed written statement on or before the last time granted to him, neither he has filed written statement nor he has applied for adjournment. However, if right to file written statement of the petitioner is closed, there would be no ground to contest the case of the claimants in favour of the petitioner herein. 6. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and order dated 8-8-2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham in Claim Case No.102/2010 is hereby quashed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to respondents No.1 to 7 herein before the Claims Tribunal within fifteen days from today. The petitioner herein shall file his written statement within fifteen days from today. No order as to costs. — Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ..,