IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.192 of 2008. Date of decision:25.07.2008. United India Insurance Company Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Narvada Devi & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Harish Bahl, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Anil Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal closing the right of the petitioner-respondent herein to lead evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings. It is submitted that the petitioner wants to examine the Licensing Clerk from the office of the District Transport Office, Kapurthala (Punjab) in support of his defence that the driver did not possess a valid driving license. For this purpose, he had sought assistance of the Court. Despite the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? fact that process was issued and witness served, he did not appear. Obviously, the fault cannot be placed on the petitioner herein. He had taken all the necessary steps to ensure the presence of the witness. The Court should have resorted to the provisions of the Code in order to ensure the presence of the witness. It is not expected that the petitioner herein would forcibly produce the witness as summoned. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in his defence. All necessary assistance shall be provided by the Court. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. July 25, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.