sheet has been uploaded in the website of the Police Department. In this regard, counsel for the appellant invited the attention of this Court to the charge sheet downloaded from the Website of the Police Department and contended that the charge sheet has been filed against the Driver of the Car for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC and Section 134-A & B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, RW1 also accepted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had submitted a report which has been marked through RW1 as Ex.P17, wherein it was stated that front side bumper of the car has been damaged. This, according to the counsel for the appellants, indicates that it was the driver of the car who, due to his rash and negligent driving, hit the motor cycle driven by the deceased. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was taken to the hospital immediately after the occurrence and admitted for the injuries. The accident register issued by the hospital under Ex.P16 clearly indicates that immediately after admission of the deceased in the hospital, intimation has been given to the Police personnel on 01.06.2018 itself. After receipt of the intimation on the same day, the Police officials have recorded the statement of the first appellant, however, for the reasons best known, First Information Report has not been registered based on such statement. Later, on coming to know about the serious condition of the deceased, the first appellant has given a complaint on 07.06.2018 based on which the First Information Report was registered. While so, the First Information Report ought not to have been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay. The second respondent has not disputed the manner in which the accident had occurred in the counter before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the second respondent has not made any suggestion to the witnesses to contradict the averments in the claim petition relating to the manner in which the accident was said to have occurred. The first respondent has also not chosen to examine the driver who had driven the vehicle to establish their defence. The Tribunal, without taking note of the above aspects, has summarily dismissed the claim petition and it warrants interference by this Court.
