JUDGMENT T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there was really an accident or not. 2. The Trial Court has chosen to give a finding that there was no accident at all. Such a finding is seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel produced a copy of the complaint which he says he has filed before the Trial Court on 10.1.1992. The seal for having received the document before the Trial Court is dated 10.1.1992 and in the copy there is a seal available. The complaint copy has been received. 3. Learned Counsel also relies upon the dictum of this Court in the case of Meenakshamma Vs. Hanumanthappa, ILR (1996) KAR 161 for the following proposition. The claim is a summary civil proceeding where the claimant is required to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by independent evidence. Hence, non-registration of a police case regarding the accident does not give rise to any adverse inference that no such motor accident occurred. 4. Thus non-registration by police is nor fatal to the case. He also relies upon the dictum of this Court in 1975 (2) Kar LJ 1945 in the case of D. Narayana Gowda by His L Rs Vs. I.N. Krishna Madystha, on the following passage. It is first urged by Sri Padubidre Raghavendra Rao, appearing for the Respondent-judgment debtor, that the documents filed on behalf of the decree holder have not been marked as exhibits and that therefore the lower appellate Court was justified in passing the order of remand. But it is to be noticed that these documents have been relied on in the course of the arguments in the executing Court and the executing Court had treated them as evidence. Hence the mere omission to mark these documents as Exhibits by the executing Court amounts to a mere technical defect. No such objection appears to have been taken in the executing Court. Moreover the copies of the orders passed in the revision petitions are certified copies as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Hence, this contention must be rejected. 5. It is seen that an unmarked document in file can be looked into ascertain truth. 6. On the other hand, Sri Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Autorickshaw has been found to be undetected. Hence, this contention must be rejected. 5. It is seen that an unmarked document in file can be looked into ascertain truth. 6. On the other hand, Sri Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Autorickshaw has been found to be undetected. Infact, the Autorickshaw which is referred to in the complaint is the one whose driver on account of courtesy and grace took the injured from the place of accident to the Hospital. For the sin of having carried such an injured person free of cost he is involved in the claim. Learned Counsel also pointed that the police have failed to report that the autorickshaw is detectable. 7. In any event, I find that prima facie the accident has taken place. Whether the Insurance company or the Autorickshaw driver is liable or not is the point to be decided by the Tribunal. It is equally necessary for the claimant to prove his case of having suffered the injuries out of the accident said to have taken place. 8. In this view, the dismissal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider afresh the documents namely the complaint filed by the appellant. All the contentions of both the parties are left open and it is open to the insurance company to contest before the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal.