WPMS No. 1701 of 2009 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Shri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioners. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.09.2009, passed by MACT/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in MACT case No. 127 of 2008, whereby the petitioners’ application dated 10.09.2009, for re-examination of P.W. 1 Babita, is rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is widow of Shiv Kumar, who died in an accident on 27.05.2008. She along with her minor daughter Deepa, filed a claim petition, which is registered as MACT Case No. 127 2008, against the Owners, Driver and Insurance Company. In her statement, as P.W. 1 Babita (claimant/present petitioner No. 1) admitted that she got married on 27.07.2009 to her brother-in-law (Devar). It appears that apprehending that she may not be entitled to compensation, the petitioner moved an application dated 10.09.2009, stating that her counsel could not ask some questions to the witness and as such, she should be re-examined. It is not clarified in the application what has been left out and what is to be clarified. In the circumstances, the tribunal rejected the application vide impugned order dated 14.09.2009. It is pertinent to mention here that even after getting remarried, the claim of petitioner’s (Babita’s) minor daughter (Deepa), who is also claimant with her in the claim petition, cannot be said to have been affected. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any error of law, committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application 76-C2, moved on 10.09.2009. Therefore, the petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay application No. 8630 of 2009, stands dismissed). (P. C. P., J.) Dt. 09.10.2009 S