JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. CMP (M) No. 898 of 2017 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 25 days’ delay in filing the appeal. A perusal of the application demonstrates that there is cogent explanation as to why appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. Even otherwise, as the delay in filing the appeal is not inordinate, in the interest of justice, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. FAO No. 155 of 2019 2. By way of this appeal the appellants, who are claimants before learned Tribunal have assailed order dated 27.2.2017 vide which learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by present claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, on the ground that as despite four opportunities having been granted to the claimants, no evidence was led by them, therefore, there was no occasion to accept their request for grant of one more opportunity. Besides this, learned Tribunal has also made an observation that as deceased himself was driving the vehicle which resulted in the unfortunate accident, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. It is not in dispute that despite four opportunities having been granted to the claimants by learned Tribunal to produce their evidence, they failed to produce the same, therefore, the dismissal of the petition for non compliance of previous orders per se cannot be faulted with. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case wherein as stated by learned counsel for the appellants, the claimants have lost their sole bread earner, in my considered view, in this case, one more opportunity should be granted to the claimants to lead their evidence by modifying the impugned order to this extent. As far as the observation of learned Tribunal that the petition was not maintainable, as the accident occurred on account of the driving of the deceased itself, in my considered view, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have had made said observation because once it had dismissed the case for non-prosecution then the learned Tribunal should not have ventured to make any observation on the merits of the case. 4. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying order dated 27.2.2018 to the extent that one more opportunity on self responsibility is hereby granted to the claimants to lead their evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today to the H.P. High Court Bar Association. The parties shall appear before learned Tribunal on 24.6.2019 and subject to costs having been paid, claimants shall be granted one more opportunity to lead their evidence on self responsibility. It is clarified that if claimants again fail to lead their evidence, then order dated 27.2.2017 shall automatically become operative. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.