Civil Revision No.4565 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4565 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 23, 2011 ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner v. Satish and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.18027-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4565 of 2011 Petitioner-Insurance Company has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21.3.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal'), vide which defence of petitioner-Insurance Company was struck off. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was filed by respondent no.1-claimant against present petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3 being Insurer, driver and owner of offending oil Civil Revision No.4565 of 2011(O&M) -2- tanker bearing No.HR38-H-5828 involved in the accident and on notice being issued petitioner-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal on 14.2.2011 and requested a date to file written statement. Hence, the case was adjourned for 7.3.2011. However on 7.3.2011 when written statement was not filed another date was requested on its behalf and the case was adjourned for 21.3.2011 subject to payment of `200/-as costs. On 21.3.2011 as well no written statement was filed, however, the cost was deposited. Hence, defence of petitioner-Insurance Company was struck off by learned Tribunal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code is not mandatory and the same is only directory in nature. It is further contended that as the written statement was sent to head office of the petitioner for the purpose of vetting and some time was taken in preparing the same and however, the same is now ready with the petitioner. It is also contended that though vehicle was insured with petitioner on the date of accident and, however, some other defences are available to the petitioner, which would be taken in the written statement. Hence, in view of these facts, though two opportunities were granted to petitioner-Insurance Company to file written statement, however, very short adjournments were granted by learned Tribunal, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner-Insurance Company to file written statement and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-Insurance company to file written statement subject to payment of Civil Revision No.4565 of 2011(O&M) -3- `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 23.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge