( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THE claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are in appeal in this Court against the judgment and order dated 30-3-2001 passed by the High Court of Madras in CMA No. 850 of 1996 preferred by the respondent herein which was directed against the judgment and award dated 29-11-1995 passed by the Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE admitted fact of the matter is as under: the claimants predecessor-in-interest one P. Veerasamy, met with an accident while riding his bicycle on 14-1-1991 at about 1500 hours on a mud road at Village Palladam owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver of a bus belonging to the respondent Corporation. ( 4 ) HE, after the said accident remained an indoor patient in the government Hospital at Palladam from 14-1-1991 to 21-1-1991. He although thereafter was discharged but had been receiving treatment in the government Hospital, Coimbatore. He died on or about 26-2-1992. ( 5 ) THE victim had filed an application before the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs 76,000 for the injuries suffered by him but upon his death the claim petition was amended and an amount of Rs 5,33,000 was claimed as compensation. ( 6 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the respondent, inter alia, contended that the deceased died of injuries which occurred to him due to the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:"1. What is the reason for the accident?2. Is it true that the injuries caused in the accident consequented in of the death of Veerasamy?3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of rs 5,00,000?" ( 7 ) ISSUE 1 was decided in favour of the appellants. ( 8 ) AS regards Issue 2, the learned Tribunal noticed that the deceased suffered the following injuries as a result of the accident:"1. left side injured 8 1/2" deep to bone as disfigured injured;2. bank (sic) side of the head has one injury;3. left eyebrow injured 1 1/2 cm disfigured injury;4. left-side back got contusion injury;5. left-side shoulder has got contition (sic) injury; and6. left-side back and to (sic) has got abrasion. " ( 9 ) THE learned Tribunal recorded:"afterwards he was sent to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. It is stated he was at Palladam Government Hospital from 14-1-1991 to 21-1-1991 as an in-patient. He states in his certificate Ext. left-side back got contusion injury;5. left-side shoulder has got contition (sic) injury; and6. left-side back and to (sic) has got abrasion. " ( 9 ) THE learned Tribunal recorded:"afterwards he was sent to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. It is stated he was at Palladam Government Hospital from 14-1-1991 to 21-1-1991 as an in-patient. He states in his certificate Ext. PW 5 that veerasamys left-side shoulder joint was moved from its position. He states that injures (sic) are ordinary injuries. He states that it is mentioned that brain has been attached (sic) by virus and because of attack of virus on brain, brain was damaged that caused cardiorespiratory arrest. He further states that might have led to the death of the deceased. " ( 10 ) KEEPING in view the income of the deceased, the Tribunal gave an award of Rs 3,59,508 in favour of the appellants. In the appeal before the high Court, the respondent, inter alia, contended that the deceased died due to lack of proper treatment and his death was not directly attributable to the accident in question. ( 11 ) THE High Court although found that the deceased suffered serious injuries, but having regard to the fact that the death took place after one year and one month, it held to be unable to connect the injuries to the death. Analysing the evidence of the doctor of Palladam Government Hospital, it inter alia, stated that injuries being grievous, there was possibility of infection due to wounds and that brain was likely to be affected thereby resulting in the consequence of death. It was observed:"therefore, in the normal circumstances, these injuries would have definitely been cured if proper medical treatment had been given to the deceased. After reading Ext. PW 4 evidence we have no doubt in our mind that the death of Veerasamy was not due to the injuries suffered in the accident. As per the wound certificate, except Injury 5 i. e. fracture in the shoulder, the other injuries are simple in nature. After reading Ext. PW 4 evidence we have no doubt in our mind that the death of Veerasamy was not due to the injuries suffered in the accident. As per the wound certificate, except Injury 5 i. e. fracture in the shoulder, the other injuries are simple in nature. " ( 12 ) THE High Court in view of its aforesaid findings granted a compensation of Rs 76,000, the details whereof are as under: (a) Loss of earning from 15-1-1991 to 31-3- Rs 4200 1991 (b) Partial loss of earning from 31-3-1991 to Rs 5000 30-6-1991 (c) Transport to hospital Rs 300 (d) Extra nourishment Rs 5000 (e) Damage to clothing and articles (cycle) Rs 1500 (f) Compensation for pain and suffering Rs 30,000 (g) Compensation for continuous disability Rs 10,000 (h) Compensation for loss of earning power Rs 20,000 Total Rs 76,000 ( 13 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the judgment of the High Court submitting, inter alia, that the primary cause of the death was said to be "hypoxic encephalopathy" leading to cardiorespiratory arrest. It was submitted that the disease "hypoxic encephalopathy" was not a curable disease which causes damage to the brain owing to lack of oxygen and flow of blood to the brain. ( 14 ) MR Sampath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, supported the judgment. ( 15 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the High Court did not discuss the materials on record in detail. It is not in dispute that the deceased was an indoor patient from 14-1-1991 to 21-1-1991. He thereafter was being treated in the Government hospital, Palladam. He died there. The medical certificate shows that the cause of the death was due to primary disease hypoxic encephalopathy and the immediate cause of death was due to cardiorespiratory arrest. The doctor examined on behalf of the claimants categorically stated that the accident might have been the cause of death of the deceased. The respondent did not bring any material on record to show that there was no link between the accident and the death. The finding of the High Court that there was no proper medical treatment and, therefore, cause of death is not attributable to the accident does not appear to be based on any material on record. The respondent did not bring any material on record to show that there was no link between the accident and the death. The finding of the High Court that there was no proper medical treatment and, therefore, cause of death is not attributable to the accident does not appear to be based on any material on record. In any event, it cannot be said to be the correct approach adopted by the High Court particularly when the Tribunal on the basis of the materials brought on record by the parties came to a contrary finding. No strong and cogent reason has been assigned by the High Court in support of its judgment reversing the findings of the Tribunal. It accepted the submission made on behalf of the respondent herein without analysing the materials and without arriving at a clear finding of fact. ( 16 ) ORDINARILY, we would have remitted the matter back to the High Court but keeping in view the fact that the accident took place as far back as in 1991 and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be met if the amount of compensation is determined at Rs 2,00,000 instead of and place of Rs 3,59,508 as determined by the Tribunal. ( 17 ) THIS appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. However, parties shall pay and bear their respective costs of this appeal.