ORDER
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. It was a claim petition filed under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Narinder Kaur and others against Surinder Singh driver, Ashwani Kumar owner and insurer of the offending truck (name of the insurer to be disclosed by the driver/owner of the truck).
2. Vide impugned order, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala dismissed the claim petition qua the owner and the insurer of the truck under Order 9 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for want of deposit of process-fee and registered cover, RC/AD for their service by the claimants and posted the case for filing written statement by driver-respondent No. 1 to 17.8.1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was originally slated for 23.7.1999 and the record is silent as to what transpired that the learned Court took up this case on 22.7.1999 and passed the impugned order to the detriment of the claimants behind their back. Impugned order reads as under:-
“Present: None.
Notice for the service of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be issued as the claimant did not file process fee and registered cover, RC/AD as ordered vide order dated 8.4.1999. Claim petition for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 C.P.C. Now to come up for filing of written statement by respondent No. 1 on 17.8.1999.”
Order dated 28.4.1999 from which the case had been posted for 23.7.1999 reads as under:-
“Present: Shri Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri V.K. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Case received by transfer. It be indexed and registered. Shri Kuldip Singh, Advocate has filed power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner, PF/RC not paid and as such Ahlmad has not issued the summons. Adjournment is requested. In the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted. Now respondents No. 2 and 3 be summoned on filing process fee, registered A.D. covers and copies of claim petition within five days for 23.7.1999.”
4. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala should not have passed an order to the detriment of the claimants behind their back on 22.7.1999 when the case was posted to be taken up on 23.7.1999. Even otherwise also, the interest of justice required that the claimants should have been called upon to put in PF and registered cover, RC/AD on 23.7.1999 for the service of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Provisions of Order 9 Rule 2 C.P.C. are penal in character. These penal provisions could have been brought into play only if the interest of justice was tilting in favour of the respondents. Claim petition was instituted in the year 1996. Claimants put in PF and registered covers several times for service upon the respondents. This shows that they were not recalcitrant or negligent. Their diligence in prosecuting this claim petition should have been taken note of by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala. Impugned order is set aside. This revision is allowed and the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala is directed to order the claimants to put in PF etc. on the adjourned date for the service upon the unserved respondents.