claimant was shown as the accused and Ext.B4 would reveal that after the investigation the final report was laid against him in terms of the provisions of 172(3) of Cr.P.C. But, at the same time, when once it is found that in respect of the said crime after the trial the accused concerned was acquitted necessarily the effect and impact of those two documents would pale insignificance and they cannot be used against him to hold him negligent. In this case, another crucial aspect is to be looked into. It is discernible from the claim petition itself that negligence was specifically attributed by the claimant/the first respondent herein against the driver of the road roller, who is the third respondent herein/the second respondent before the Tribunal. He has not chosen to enter appearance and to resist the application. Though the appellant herein had obtained permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act apart from producing the FIR, scene mahazar and the final report in Crime No.332/2002 of Traffic Police station, Thrissur, no evidence whatsoever, either oral or documentary, was produced by the appellants to establish their pleadings on negligence on the part of the claimant/first respondent herein. In such circumstances, though we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had not gone into the matter and appreciated the evidence in an appropriate manner ultimately we are to agree with the conclusion arrived at, by the Tribunal for the foregoing reasons. In other words, we do not find any reason to overrule the
