JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri. Kadukar, Advocate holding for Shri. parchure, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents though they were served on a notice of final disposal. 2. Since this Court had by an order dated 16th January, 2007 issued notice to the respondents intimating the respondents that the matter would be heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission, this First Appeal is being finally heard and disposed of by this judgment. 3. The appellant is the original non-applicant no.2, New India Assurance Company. In this case, the counsel for the appellate has tried to bring it to the notice of this Court that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim has hurriedly decided the claim petition of the respondents without affording reasonable opportunity to the Insurance Company either to file a written statement or to tender oral evidence. Since the counsel for the appel1ant seeks remand of the matter for an opportunity to the appellant to tender evidence on the issue involved in the claim petition, the counsel for the appellant reserves the right to challenge the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim deciding the claim petition on merits. Since the question involved in this First Appeal relates only to the denial of the opportunity to the Insurance Company to defend the claim petition, it would not be necessary to touch the merits of the case. 4. I have called for the Record & Proceedings and the order sheet in the Record & Proceedings substantiates the main and the only submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to defend its case by filing the written statement as well as examining the witnesses on its behalf. According to the counsel for the appellant, the matter was placed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim on 7th July, 2006 for recording the oral evidence of the non-applicants, which includes the New India Assurance Company. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that it was extremely necessary for the company to examine the Regional Transport Officer to falsify the claim of the claimants. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that it was extremely necessary for the company to examine the Regional Transport Officer to falsify the claim of the claimants. But, though the matter was fixed for the first time on 7th July, 2006 for recording the oral evidence of the non-applicants, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim rejected the application filed by the appellant for grant of time to examine the witnesses. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal committed a serious error in rejecting the application for grant of time when the matter was listed for recording the evidence of the non-applicants, for the first occasion. 5. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the following points arise for determination in this Second Appeal — I. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for grant of time to examine the witnesses? II. Whether the matter is liable to be remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim for a De-Novo Inquiry for affording an opportunity to the appellant company to defend the claim petition? 6. For considering the aforesaid issues, it is merely necessary to consider the order sheet and a couple of applications filed on behalf of the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim. The claim petition was filed On 19th October, 2005. The notice was issued by the Claims Tribunal on 24th October, 2005 and the matter was fixed on 12th December, 2005. On 12th December, 2005, the counsel for the appellant put in his appearance and sought for time to file the written statement. The time was granted till 30th January, 2006. Thereafter, time was again granted to the appellant for filing written statement till 16th February, 2006. In the meanwhile, the matter was placed before the Lok-Adalat to consider whether the settlement between the parties was possible. Since the settlement was not possible, the matter was taken up on 16th February, 2006 and thereafter fixed on 9th March, 2006. On 9th March, 2006 itself, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim passed an order of No Written Statement. It is noteworthy that the matter was not listed before the Court even on three occasions for filing of written statement when an order of No Written Statement was passed. On 9th March, 2006 itself, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim passed an order of No Written Statement. It is noteworthy that the matter was not listed before the Court even on three occasions for filing of written statement when an order of No Written Statement was passed. When on 10th April, 2006, an application was filed by the appellant company for setting aside the No Written Statement order and for seeking permission to file the same, the Tribunal by an order dated 14th June, 2006 granted permission to the appellant to file the written statement on depositing costs of Rs.1,000/-. It appears that the appellant had, however, not deposited the costs of Rs.1,000/- till the returnable date. On 26th June, 2006, i.e. the subsequent date, the matter was placed for the cross-examination and the matter was fixed on 7th July, 2006 for oral evidence of the non-applicants which also' included the present appellant. On 7th July, 2006, an application Exh.31 was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal seeking time to adduce evidence of the Regional Transport Officer to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having proper category driving license. Though that was the first occasion on which the matter was listed for examination of the witness of the non-applicants, the Court rejected the application on the ground that already sufficient time was given. It is apparent from the order dated 7th July, 2006 that the order is perverse and no opportunity was granted to the appellant to tender its oral evidence before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the order are contrary to the record which shows that sufficient time was never given to the non-applicants to examine their witnesses and the matter was listed before the Tribunal for examination of the witnesses of the non-applicants for the first time. Thereafter, it appears on 25th July, 2006, when the appellant sought permission for depositing the costs of Rs.1,000/- which the appellant had failed to deposit due to oversight, the Court passed order for 'filing' the application as the judgment was already delivered on the same date i.e. on 25th July, 2006. 7. From the perusal of the order sheet as well as the applications filed by the appellant on record, it is apparent that the appellant was not given any time to examine the witnesses. 7. From the perusal of the order sheet as well as the applications filed by the appellant on record, it is apparent that the appellant was not given any time to examine the witnesses. As stated hereinabove, it is explicit from the order sheet that the matter was placed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim on 7th July, 2006 for the first time for the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the non-applicants. It was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to have granted at least a couple of opportunities to the appellant to tender the evidence of its witnesses. However, it appears from the record that the Tribunal was desirous of deciding the matter as early as possible without affording an opportunity to the Insurance Company though the fault lies with the appellant in not depositing the costs of Rs.1,000/-, further orders on the application for grant of time for examination of the witnesses filed on 7th July, 2006 clearly shows that the Tribunal has not granted an opportunity to the appellant company to defend the case. The judgment and award passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the company to defend the case. In fact, it is necessary to note that the counsel for the claimants had not seriously objected to the prayers made in the Civil Applications filed by the appellant. But, the Court had still rejected the same for the reasons which are clearly unsustainable. 8. Since the matter is now being remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim for providing opportunity to the appellant to defend the case, it would be necessary in the interest of justice, to permit the Insurance Company to file a written statement also, on depositing the costs of Rs4,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim within a period of four weeks from today. In case the appellant deposits the costs of Rs4,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim within a period of four weeks from today, the Tribunal is directed to permit the appellant to file the written statement and also afforded an opportunity to the appellant to examine the witnesses. The appellant is, however, directed to tender the evidence of witnesses immediately thereafter so that the matter before the Tribunal would not linger for long. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the First Appeal is allowed. The appellant is, however, directed to tender the evidence of witnesses immediately thereafter so that the matter before the Tribunal would not linger for long. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the First Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. It is needless to mention that the appellant company is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court including the statutory deposit as the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication on merits. In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.