Civil Revision No.5300 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5300 of 2011 Date of Decision:01.09.2011 Hardeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus Simranjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Navgeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Simranjit Singh and his father Lt.Col.Gurbachan Singh(Retd.)-respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants(for brevity “the claimants”) filed the claim-petition against Hardeep Singh son of Resham Singh-petitioner-respondent No.1(Driver & owner of the offending vehicle) and IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd- respondent No.3, invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. As the petitioner did not file the reply/written statement, despite sufficient opportunities, therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali (for short “the MACT”) struck off his defence, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.05.2011(Annexure P/1). 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P/1) of the MACT, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No.5300 of 2011 2 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the claim-petition, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is clear from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the MACT, to struck off the defence of the petitioner was that, despite availing sufficient opportunities, he did not file the written statement. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the fact that, the petitioner was the Driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the nature of litigation, to me, the MACT ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner, to file the written statement, subject to costs. The presence of the petitioner is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants, particularly when they can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The MACT is directed to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, to file his written statement. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-claimants. Needless to mention that, the MACT would ensure the payment of costs personally to the claimants. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to the further Civil Revision No.5300 of 2011 3 defence of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the MACT forthwith, for strict compliance. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE