JUDGMENT 1. Briefly, the facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The husband of petitioner No. 1, Amriti Devi, was a driver with Bus No. HPK-3333 owned by respondent No. 1. While at Dalhousie during winter season, it did not start due to cold with the result that the deceased burnt some material underneath the same in order to start the vehicle. During this process, the deceased caught fire and sustained injuries. He was treated at Govt. Hospital, Dalhousie and thereafter shifted to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh, where he ultimately expired. 2. The claimants, the widow and the minor children (five in number), moved a petition claiming compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Dharamshala. Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this Court, submits that when this case was fixed for reconciliation, it come out that the Tribunal at Dharamshala had no jurisdiction to decide the matter since by that time a separate Tribunal for Chamba had been established. As a result of this, the Tribunal returned the claim petition with a separate endorsement under O.7, R. 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure whereupon the claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba. 3. The Tribunal at Chamba rejected the same on the ground that the return of the claim petition by the Tribunal at Dharamshala was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of O. 7, R. 10(2) of C.P.C. since it requires an endorsement to be made right on the claim petition. It is this action of the Tribunal at Chamba that has been challenged by the claimants by way of this appeal. 4. After hearing Sh. R. K. Sharma for the claimants and S/ Sh. Devinder Gupta and C. B. Barowalia for respondents 1 and 2 respectively, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal at Chamba has not dealt with the matter correctly and in accordance with law. Firstly, the provisions of O. 7 R. 10(2) C.P.C. should not have been interpreted so rigidly more especially in view of separate endorsement already made by the Tribunal at Dharamshala. Secondly, these provisions are not applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal since State of Himachal Pradesh has framed its own rules of procedure known as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960. Secondly, these provisions are not applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal since State of Himachal Pradesh has framed its own rules of procedure known as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960. R. 20 thereof is relevant which is reproduced as under.- " 20. Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases. The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall so far as may be apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunals, namely, Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; O. IX, O. XIII, Rules 3 to 10; O. XVI, Rules 2 to 21; O. XVII; and O. XXIII, Rules 1 to 3." 5. It appears that this rule was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal which resulted not only in the miscarriage of justice but also harassment to the claimants who are from a very poor strata of society with practically nothing to depend upon. The Tribunals should not, in such like cases, take a very hyper-technical view of the matters of procedure since they, sometimes, cause immense inconvenience and prejudice to the claimants for nothing. Approach has always to be to do substantial justice to the parties which is the sole concern of the courts of justice. 6. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba, is directed to register the claim petition of the claimants at its original number and proceed to decide the same swiftly. It is desirable that this matter is decided by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. The Registry is directed to transmit all relevant documents to the Tribunal, Chamba, immediately. The parties may appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba, on 27-12-1989. Appeal allowed.