JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision pet i t i on has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2019 whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by order. 2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Ace i dent CI a i ms Tribunal, Bathinda, for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakh on account of death of Shri Baldev Singh, son of Hoshiar Singh, in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 13.02.2016. It had been stated in the claim petition that Baldev Singh was working as driver with respondent No.6 herein and used to drive an oil tanker bearing registration No.PB-03Y-9070. On 13.02.2016, at about 11.30 P.M. the oil tanker No. PB-03Y-9070, which was being driven by Baldev Singh, was hit by truck bearing registration No.PB-10FF-9955. The said truck was being driven by respondent No.4 herein on the wrong side of the road resulting in a head-on co11usion between the vehicles. The accident resulted i n the death of Baldev Singh. 3. The petitioner-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and moved an application for product i on of documents on the very first day of appearance. However, it is stated that the Insurance Company failed to get the details of any documents asked for, as the driver and truck owner of the truck bearing registration No.PB-10FF-9955 were proceeded against ex-parte. Therefore, the petitioner-Insurance Company filed an application before the Tribunal seeking permission to examine respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, (driver and truck owner) to prove certain documents i.e. registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate of the truck bearing registration No.PB-10FF-9955 as well as the driving licence and training certificate of respondent No.4. 4. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2019, allowed the application to examine respondent Nos.4 and 5 as witnesses along with the record as detailed in the application on deposit of the requisite fee on the next date, which was 11.10.2019. On 11.10.2019, the case was adjourned to 21.10.2019 for summoning of the witnesses, as the petitioner-Insurance Company failed to deposit the requisite fee for summoning the witnesses. On 21.10.2019, again the witnesses could not be summoned as the requisite fee was not filed. On 11.10.2019, the case was adjourned to 21.10.2019 for summoning of the witnesses, as the petitioner-Insurance Company failed to deposit the requisite fee for summoning the witnesses. On 21.10.2019, again the witnesses could not be summoned as the requisite fee was not filed. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2019, held that the petitioner was not serious and had not complained with the orders of the Court qua filling of the requisite fee and, thus, closed the evidence of the petitioner by order. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisite fee for summoning the witnesses could not be filed due to an inadvertent mistake of the clerk of the lawyer, who was defending the case before the Tribunal at Bathinda. It is also contended that the diet money had been given to the clerk but the clerk had fallen ill and could not file requisite fee for summoning of the witnesses. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the Insurance Company was adopting the delaying tactics. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1), it does appear that despite the application being allowed the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite fee for summoning of the witnesses and this shows some laxity on the part of the petitioner-Insurance Company. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was no laxity on the part of the petitioner but rather the amount had already been handed over to the clerk of the counsel, who was looking after the matter before the Tribunal and, since the clerk fell ill, the amount could not be deposited. 9. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that it would be just and proper if one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file the requisite fee for summoning of the witnesses. The revision petition is, hence, allowed. The order dated 21.10.2019 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner-Insurance Company to lead its evidence.