IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 459 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Puran Chand and another ….Petitioners. Versus Pawan Kumar and another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the respondent No.2: Mr. J.S.Bagga, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 7th December, 2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, whereby he held that the present petitioners had no right to file reply after the period of 90 days had expired and accordingly has struck off the defence of the petitioners herein. 2. In my view, the learned MACT has totally misdirected himself. Only those provisions are applicable in proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which have been specifically made applicable to the Tribunals under the H.P. Motor Vehicles Rules or under the Motor Vehicles Act itself. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has not been specifically made applicable to 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 proceedings pending before the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in holding that the respondents had no right to file a reply since the period of 90 days had expired. 3. The approach of the learned Tribunal, to say the least, is highly technical and not supported by law. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside. The petitioners are granted one more opportunity to file reply. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 29th April, 2011. On or before the said date the petitioners shall file their reply before the learned Tribunal which shall be taken on record. In case reply is not filed on or before the said date the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 29th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge