JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - For the reasons mentioned defect no.3 pointed out by the Office is over-ruled. Counsel for the claimant and the petitioner-Company jointly requested for final disposal of the matter. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 03.4.2019 (Annex.7) passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Petition No.429/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently the applications filed by the petitioner Company (Annex.5 & 6) for summoning the witnesses i.e. driver of the insured vehicle and I.O. may kindly be allowed." 3. Brief facts of the case are that on a written report submitted by one Narayan Lal on 08.9.2016, FIR No.267/2016 was registered at P.S. Bheem, District Rajsamand wherein it was alleged that on 10.8.2016 while his son Balveer Kumar alongwith two other persons i.e. Mahaveer Singh and Raju Harijan were going towards Bheem on Motor-cycle No.RJ-36-SK-2001, they were hit by Jeep No.RJ-30-TA-1293 thereby causing injuries to motorcycle riders. A claim petition was filed by respondent no.1 to which the petitioner- Company filed its reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. The involvement of insured vehicle in the accident was categorically denied and certain other objections were taken by the petitioner-Company. Two more claim petitions no.429016 and 311/2017 came to be filed in context with the same incident and all those three claim petitions were clubbed together. Since despite service of notice owner and driver of vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn and accordingly issues were framed on 14.6.2017. On 30.1.2019 two separate applications were preferred by petitioner-Company for summoning driver of insured Jeep and the I.O. concerned, however, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 03.4.2019 dismissed those applications and closed evidence of petitioner, hence, this writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since their evidence was going on and driver and owner were not representing themselves, therefore, it was necessary in the interest of justice and for establishing true and correct facts that the I.O. and driver of vehicle be called for in the witness-box at the instance of petitioner. 5. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since their evidence was going on and driver and owner were not representing themselves, therefore, it was necessary in the interest of justice and for establishing true and correct facts that the I.O. and driver of vehicle be called for in the witness-box at the instance of petitioner. 5. Counsel for the respondent opposed the submission on the ground that the trial is at fag end and if at all the petitioner wanted to call for the evidence, then that ought to have been done at the initial stage itself. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing impugned order dated 03.4.2019 this Court finds the order passed by the Tribunal is a non-speaking order. The Tribunal failed to consider necessity of witness of driver and I.O. concerned in separate applications. The learned Tribunal has not given any reason as to why petitioner-Company did not require driver and I.O. to be summoned in witness-box to carry forward their proceeding. This Court also finds that since driver and I.O. being the key witness in the whole occurrence, therefore, in the interest of justice no harm is going to be caused to either of the parties if they were called in witness-box. Furthermore both the applications for summoning driver, so also, the I.O. concerned, were filed well in time as the evidence of petitioner was going on. 7. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.4.2019 (Annex.7) passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Petition No.429/2016 is quashed and set aside and the applications (Annex.5 & 6) filed by the petitioner Company for summoning the witnesses i.e. driver of the insured vehicle and I.O. is allowed. The learned Tribunal is directed to allow the petitioner-Company to call I.O. concerned and the driver as witness in the matter.