JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner non-claimant has preferred this writ petition against the impugned orders dated 25.8.2012 (Annex.P/2) and 23.11.2013 (Annex.4) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali, in a claim under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `Act of 1988') laid by respondents No. 1 to 5, the claimants. 2. The petitioner was arrayed as a non-claimant but despite service nobody appeared on her behalf and therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against her by order Annex.P/2. Subsequently, when the petitioner was summoned as witness by the respondent Insurance Company, as per the version of the petitioner, she came to know about the ex-parte proceedings drawn by the learned Tribunal and therefore an endeavor was made at her behest for setting aside ex-parte order by submitting an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. The application submitted on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Tribunal and the same was rejected by order dated 23.11.2013 (Annex.P/4). 3. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very' outset submits that while applying for setting aside ex-parte order the petitioner has also submitted her written statement but the same has not been taken on record. Mr. Tiwari has argued that in fact the notices were issued by the Tribunal were served on the petitioner and in turn she instructed the driver of the vehicle to represent her cause before the Tribunal but the Driver has not appeared before the Tribunal, and therefore, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte. However, according to Mr. Tiwari, subsequently the Driver was permitted to participate in the proceedings by the Tribunal while setting aside the ex-parte order but this indulgence has not been granted to the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari undertakes that he will not be insisting for resummoning the witnesses for cross-examination, who are examined by the respondent-claimants, and submits that the written statement on behalf of the petitioner may be taken on record and she may be permitted to appear as witness and also as a party to the litigation. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants, Mr. Rajpurohit, has submitted that the claim petition is pending since 2012 and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner the respondent-claimants may be adequately compensated by means of cost. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants, Mr. Rajpurohit, has submitted that the claim petition is pending since 2012 and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner the respondent-claimants may be adequately compensated by means of cost. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, in the interest of justice the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari appears to be just and proper and one opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings subject to rider that the petitioner shall not be recalling the witnesses who were examined by the claimants for cross-examination and the learned Tribunal shall take on record the written statement submitted on behalf of the petitioner and shall further allow her to appear as witness and as party to the litigation. 6. Accordingly, taking into account the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instance case, the impugned orders Annex.P/2 and P/4 are annulled subject to the observations and the learned Tribunal is directed to take on record the written statement submitted on behalf of the petitioner and to permit her to appear as witness in the witness box as well as a party non-claimant. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent-claimants. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on the next date already fixed.The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.Petition allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. *******