IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 207 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026. Smt. Ratku Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Paramjit Singh & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Manisha Kumari, Advocate, for respondents No. 7(i) & 7(ii). Respondents No. 6 & 8 already proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.07.2024 Respondents No. 9 & 10 deleted vide order dated 01.01.2025. None for respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge (oral) The present petition arises out of the order passed by the learned MACT-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., dated 04.11.2023, whereby the petition filed by the present 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner was ordered to be dismissed qua respondents No. 1 and 2 for non-prosecution. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking award of compensation before the Court of learned MACT-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 3. As per the record, the said petition was filed on 21.06.2013. Respondent No. 3 filed a reply to the said claim petition, which also forms part of the record. 4. An application filed by the petitioner/claimant under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC for service of respondents No. 1 and 2 through publication was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2023 and thereafter, directions were issued to take steps in this regard. However, when neither requisite steps were taken nor order dated 11.04.2023 was complied with, the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023 dismissed the claim petition for non prosecution qua respondents No. 1 and 2. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claimant is a widow, who has approached the Court on account of the death of her husband, Sh. Gulaba Ram. It is further contended that the present petition has been filed through Legal Aid Counsel, as the petitioner is a financially weak lady. 6. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and as a matter of indulgence, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 is quashed and set aside, and the claim petition is restored to its original number, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall take appropriate steps as undertaken before this Court, pursuant to the order passed on the application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC within a period of four weeks from today before learned MACT-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., who is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned MACT-II on 07.04.2026. 4 9. Considering that the claim petition pertains to the year 2013, the learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the proceedings. 10. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge March 20, 2026 (Nisha)