Civil Revision No. 5095 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5095 of 2007 Date of decision: 24.04.2009. Vivek Soni Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner is in revision against the order dated 13.3.2007 (Annexure P-8) vide which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani ordered the deletion of respondent no.3 as a party on the basis of a statement made by its Branch Manager to the effect that offending vehicle (a Trailor) was not under insurance cover with it. The deletion was ordered when the case had entered the stage of claimant's evidence. The petitioner is averred to be registered owner of the offending vehicle (a Trailor bearing Registration No.HR-38H/1874) which was involved in the impugned accident. Respondent no.4 Baljeet Singh had filed a petition to claim compensation in respect of Civil Revision No. 5095 of 2007 -2- **** the injuries sustained by him in the course of the impugned accident. He had impleaded the insurer of the two vehicles involved in the impugned accident ( i.e. Trailor No.HR-38H/1874 and Truck No.HR- 39/2226) and also the drivers of both the vehicles and registered owners of the vehicles. It was in the course of the hearing on 13.3.2007 that the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company, the alleged insurer of the Trailor bearing Registration No.HR-38H/1874, had informed the Tribunal that the Trailor aforementioned had not been insured with that company. On the basis of the statement made by the Branch Manager of the insurer aforementioned, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of United India Insurance Company as a party. The petitioner-claimant therein had made a precise averment that the Trailor bearing Registration No.HR-38H/1874, of which he was the registered owner, was under insurance cover with the United India Insurance Company. He was not called upon to respond to the averment made by the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company. Issues, in the context of the accountability for compensation, had already been framed and the case has entered the stage of claimant's evidence. The petitioner herein was not even called upon to offer his response to the averment made by the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company. Further, the claimant therein too had not been afforded opportunity to react to the statement made by the Branch Manager aforementioned. In that view of things, the Tribunal could not have Civil Revision No. 5095 of 2007 -3- **** ordered the deletion of United Insurance Company as a party. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside aside. The Tribunal shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. April 24, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge