ORDER : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. 1. The Claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 24-02-2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 645/2005(384/2002), whereby claim petition was dismissed. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that claimant/appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal stating therein that on 25-02-2000, claimant's son Anoop Kumar was travelling in a Maruti Van, which was hit by Tanker No. GJ-1-X-6803. The accident occurred opposite to Fauzi Yadav Dhaba, N.H. No. 8, Ajmer. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, Anoop Kumar died. Claimants, being parents and legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim petition against owner, driver and insurer of the aforesaid Tanker, claiming compensation from them. 3. After completion of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 06-07-2005 and the case was fixed for claimant's evidence. Claimants did not produce any evidence and it was closed on 21-02-2006. Evidence of non-claimants was also closed on 23-02-2006 and thereafter, the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Tribunal on 24-02-2006, whereby the claim petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that absence of the claimants and their counsel in the Tribunal on 21-02-2006 and thereafter, was not intentional. On the last date of hearing 31-01-2006, counsel for the claimants by mistake noted down next date as 07-03-2006, consequently he could not appear on subsequent dates. On 07-03-2006, when the learned counsel for the claimants appeared before the Tribunal, he came to know about dismissal of the claim petition on 24-02-2006. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not dismissing the claim petition in default and dismissing it on merits. Learned counsel further submits that Claimant Sharda Choudhary was suffering from breast cancer and for this reason, claimants could not appear before the Tribunal on 21-02-2006, 23-02-2006 & 24-02-2006. The said ailment resulted in her death during pendency of the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. The said ailment resulted in her death during pendency of the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. From perusal of the memo of appeal and copy of the impugned judgment, it reveals that after completion of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 06-07-2005 and the case was fixed for evidence of the claimants. On 05-10-2005, 06-12-2005 & 24-01-2006, the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the claimants. On next date 31-01-2006, the work was suspended by the bar. On next date 21-02-2006, none was present from claimant's side and evidence of the claimants was ordered to be closed by the Tribunal observing that sufficient opportunity has been provided to the claimants to produce evidence and learned Tribunal fixed the next date 23-02-2006 for evidence of non-claimants. On 23-02-2006, non-claimant - Insurance Company did not wish to produce evidence, therefore, evidence was closed and the next date 24-02-2006 was fixed for arguments and judgment. On 24-02-2006, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment. 7. Undisputably, claimants did not produce any evidence and neither the claimants nor their advocate were present in the Tribunal on 21-02-2006, when the case was taken up. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal might have proceeded to dispose of the claim petition, in one of the modes mentioned in Order 9 of the CPC, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the mandatory provisions of Rule 2 Order 17 of the CPC, has ordered to close evidence of the claimants. In case the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of the claimants would already have been recorded, only then the Tribunal could close the evidence, treating that claimants are present. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not dismissing the claim petition in default on 21-02-2006 and dismissing the same on merits on 24-02-2006, which resulted into failure of justice, therefore, impugned judgment can not be allowed to sustain. 9. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not dismissing the claim petition in default on 21-02-2006 and dismissing the same on merits on 24-02-2006, which resulted into failure of justice, therefore, impugned judgment can not be allowed to sustain. 9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned judgment dated 24-02-2006 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal with direction to provide one more opportunity to the claimants to produce their evidence in support of the claim petition and thereafter, decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law. 10. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 22-02-2017.