N.M. Kasliwal, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against an order passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 20-9-84 in claim petition No. 17 of 1982. The petitioner Nanda had filed a claim petition against one Jageshwar Singh driver of the vehicle, Tilok Chand owner of the vehicle and the New India Assurance Company Limited. On 23rd August, 1984 an order was passed by the Claims Tribunal to the effect that the registered A.D. of non-petitioner No. 2 Tilok Chand had not returned back as such, the notices may again be issued against non-petitioner No. 2 and three days time was granted to the petitioner to file the fresh registered A.D. The next date in the case was fixed as 20-9-84. It appears that the petitioner did not file the registered A.D. within three days and filed it on 17th September, 1984. The learned Claims Tribunal as such passed an order on 20-9-84 that the petitioner had filed the process fee of the non-petitioner No. 2 after long delay and he did not comply with the order dated 23rd August, 1984, as such, service of non-petitioner No. 2 was closed. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has filed the present writ petition.
2. I have heard Mr. Mathur, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bhargava on behalf of non-petitioner No. 4, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. In the present case, on 23-8-84, three days time was allowed to the petitioner the file the registered A.D. and he did not file the same within the aforesaid time. However, the registered A.D. was filed on 17-9-84 i.e 3 days prior to the date fixed in the case. It was a claim petition and merely on account of filing the registered A.D. late, it was not proper for the Tribunal to have closed the further service on non-petitioner No. 2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle. There can be no manner of doubt that the result of closing the service on non-petitioner No. 2 would be that the other non-petitioners will be able to take an objection that the award could not be passed in the absence of the owner of the vehicle. The effect of the impugned order would be dismissal of the main claim petition and it would be too harsh to dismiss the claim petition simply on the ground that on one occasion, the petitioner filed the registered A.D, after some delay. The learned Tribunal acted in an unreasonable manner in closing the service on non-petitioner No. 2 by the impugned order dated 20-9-84. It is not the case of the non-petitioner that the petitioner was intentionally delaying the matter or was defaulter in filing the process fee or the registered A.D. on earlier occasions also. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, should not have taken such a harsh step of closing the service on the owner of the vehicle.
3. In the result, this petition is allowed, the order of the Motor. Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk dated 20th September, 1984 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to give a fresh date for issuing notices to non-petitioner No. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition.