( 1 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 27-3-2001 passed in MVOP No. 414 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, vizianagaram. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the claimant in mvop No. 414 of 1999 filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident took place on 14-12-1998 involving APSRTC bus No. AP 10 Z 1057 driven by the first respondent. It is the case of the claimant that while he was going from his house to bondapalli Bus Stop on the left side of the road and when he reached the Bus Stop, the aforesaid bus corning from Parvathipuram side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without even blowing any horn or following traffic rules dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries all over the body. ( 3 ) THE claimant himself filed the claim petition though it has been stated he sustained injuries on the left side of the frontal bone, a sutured wound below the left eye, injury below the left knee and laceration wound below the right knee and other injuries all over the body. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal disbelieved the accident said to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and also the injuries said to have been received by the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred contending that due to the said accident the mental capacity of the claimant has been slightly affected intermittently, therefore, non-examination of the claimant is not fatal when his wife was examined and necessary documents were adduced. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as the accident is concerned, the wife of the claimant, examined as PW 1, stated that she is not an eye-witness to the accident and somebody informed her about the accident, therefore, she went to the Gajapathinagaram hospital and found the claimant there. She further stated that her husband was treated as in-patient for a period of two months and she spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards medical expenses and other incidental expenses. Her husband used to attend coolie work and earn Rs. 100/- per day. She further stated that her husband was treated as in-patient for a period of two months and she spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards medical expenses and other incidental expenses. Her husband used to attend coolie work and earn Rs. 100/- per day. On account of the injuries he could not attend to coolie work and her husband lost mental balance. She filed Ex. A1 certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 92 of 1998 of bondapalli Police Station, Ex. A2 the certified copy of the wound certificate, Ex. A3 the motor Vehicle Inspector Report and Ex. A4 the certified copy of the charge-sheet. In the cross-examination she admitted that she has not filed any documentary evidence to show that she had spent Rs. 15,000/-towards medicines and incidental expenses. The suggestion that her husband has not become mentally unsound was denied. ( 6 ) IF the claimant was mentally unsound he could not have filed the claim petition but would have filed the same through a near friend or guardian. Admittedly no steps have been taken under Order XXXII rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if the claimant were an unsound person. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the accident, one Singidi butchayya, examined as PW2, stated that while the claimant was going on foot the bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant from behind, by reason of which the claimant sustained injuries. In the cross-examination he admitted that the claimant has not become insane. Therefore, it is very doubtful as to whether the claimant has become insane or mentally unsound, as no steps have been taken under order XXXII Rule 15. However, in view of Ex. A1-FIR, Ex. A2-wound certificate, ex. A4-charge-sheet and evidence of PW2, cited as witness in the charge-sheet as LW3, it cannot be said that accident did not occur and the aforesaid bus was not at all involved in the accident. However, in view of Ex. A1-FIR, Ex. A2-wound certificate, ex. A4-charge-sheet and evidence of PW2, cited as witness in the charge-sheet as LW3, it cannot be said that accident did not occur and the aforesaid bus was not at all involved in the accident. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, as the Tribunal has not considered the FIR, wound certificate and charge-sheet and as the claimant submits that a chance may be given to him to examine himself or to take appropriate steps to prove his insanity or unsound mind and with regard to the injuries sustained by him and to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to give a reasonable opportunity to the claimant. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside remanding the matter to the Tribunal so as to enable the appellant to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and also to lead additional evidence for grant of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. .