IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 349 of 2011 Date of decision : September 21, 2011 Sandhya Devi and anr. …Petitioners. Versus Vimala Devi and ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioners have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking award of compensation for the death of the bread-winner of their family. Evidence has been closed by the learned Tribunal vide order, dated 25th August, 2011. Petitioners are aggrieved by this order. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. It is true that the petition is pending since 2007, but copies of impugned order and previous order suggest that the petitioners were not informed that in case, they did not produce Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… their evidence, on the date when the impugned order was passed, evidence would be closed. 4. In view of above-stated position, present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and learned Tribunal is directed to afford at least one more opportunity to the petitioners to adduce their evidence, for which steps shall also be permitted to be taken by the petitioners. 5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 21, 2011 (Surjit Singh), J (pankaj)