IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.1 of 2010 Date of decision : July 26, 2010 United India Insurance Company …Petitioner. Versus Daulat Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. M.L. Bragta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is Insurance Company and in that capacity, it has been impleaded as one of the respondents, in a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Matter was listed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for its evidence. It filed list of witnesses and also steps were taken for summoning the witnesses. Witnesses were supposed to have appeared on 15th December, 2009. On that date, one witness appeared. He was examined. Other witness, for summoning whom, process fee etc. had been filed, was not present. Learned Tribunal closed the evidence. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order of closure of its evidence. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. When the petitioner had taken the requisite steps for summoning the witnesses and one of the witnesses did not appear, despite the petitioner having taken steps, its evidence could not have been closed. Fresh process was required to be issued for the appearance of the witness. The order is thus illegal and is, therefore, set aside. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Tribunal is directed to issue fresh process for the appearance of the remaining witness(es) of the petitioner. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25th August, 2010. July 26, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J