1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 585 OF 2009 Vatsalabai Vasudeo Mahajan and another ...Petitioners Versus Santosh Ashok Dhiware and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Girish Rane, advocate for the petitioners Mr. Manoj Shinde h/f Mr. M.K. Goyanka, advocate for respondent No. 3 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 13TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2 This petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the M.A.C.T. Amalner below Exh.53 in M.A.C. 103 of 2005. 3 It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed M.A.C. No. 103 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs (subsequently amended to Rs.4.00 lacs) for death claim of deceased Rushikesh Mahajan, who died in motor accident. Prior to death, the deceased has 2 undergone treatment and incurred expenditure. The petitioners on 13.2.2008 had filed list of witnesses. Out of those witnesses, three witnesses are from Surat. As per the request of the petitioners, the witness summons were issued to the witnesses and accordingly Bhatta charges were paid. The petitioners on 21.8.2008, filed an application at Exh.58 praying for issuance of fresh summons to the witnesses and requested for Hamdast. However, the learned trial court on 10.10.2008, had closed the evidence of the petitioners as the notice to the witnesses was not received nor the witnesses were present and petitioners have not taken further steps. The petitioners filed another application at Exh.53 on 16.10.2008 praying for appointment of Court Commissioner for recording of evidence of the witnesses from Surat and shown his readiness to bear entire costs. According to the petitioners, there was no objection from the respondents for appointment of Court Commissioner. The petitioners were ready to bear the expenses. However, the trial Court rejected the said application. Hence, this writ petition. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order impugned in this petition is not only cryptic but it does not even refer the contents of the application at Exh.53. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the observations in the impugned order that even the Judge has not ascertained the report of service whether the service is effected or not, and closed the evidence. Learned counsel 3 appearing for the respondent No.3 sticked up to the stand taken before the trial Court. 5 After hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent No.3, I am of the view that the impugned order is not only cryptic but is passed without appreciating the contention in the application filed by the petitioners. In my considered view, when the claimants have filed claim petition and in which the application is made, the concerned Member of the Tribunal should have properly dealt in with the contents of the application and ought not to have closed the evidence hurriedly. Mere perusal of the impugned order would show that there is no clarity in the order. There is no reference in the order about the contents of the application. The learned Judge has observed that the witness summons were produced “with service or without service”. It is difficult to understand from the impugned order that exactly what the the learned Judge wants to convey. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The concerned Judge of M.A.C. Tribunal shall consider the application of the petitioners at Exh.53 afresh and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from receipt of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent and disposed of. *****