JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. None appears for the respondent No. 1 despite due notice from this Court. 2. By means of this appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants, the claimants in the claim proceeding being TS (MAC) 203 of 2013 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala have questioned the judgment dated 21.12.2015. By the said judgment, the claim petition filed by the appellants has been rejected observing that the appellants could not prove that the victim sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident involving the motorcycle bearing No. TR-01-N-8614. 3. Ms. S. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that though the final report filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was introduced in the evidence but the said report was not considered. Only the first information report dated 14.04.2013, which was registered as Amtali PS Case No. 80 of 2013 under Section 279/304A of IPC was considered and the tribunal has suspected its veracity. Before coming to such inference, the police report that was filed and introduced in the evidence was not considered. According to the said police report, one Nihar Ranjan Roy who was riding the bike at the time of its accident i.e. on 17.09.2012 at about 11:30 hrs to 11:45 hrs has been chargesheeted. Thus, by not taking the said document into consideration the tribunal has committed serious illegality. 4. That apart, Ms. S. Deb, learned counsel has referred the post mortem report where the forensic expert has observed that it appears from the injuries that it was a case of road traffic accident. 5. But this Court has found that except the appellant No. 1 nobody was examined, even though it is the undisputed fact that the accident occurred in a place where the appellant No. 1 was not present at the relevant of the point of time and he even did not claim that he saw the accident or what happened thereafter. Consequentially, the secondary documents as introduced in the evidence could not satisfy the tribunal. 6. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted the appeal is without any substance as the finding of the tribunal suffers from no infirmity. 7. Consequentially, the secondary documents as introduced in the evidence could not satisfy the tribunal. 6. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted the appeal is without any substance as the finding of the tribunal suffers from no infirmity. 7. At this juncture, it requires to be mentioned that the appellant has filed an application being IA No. 01/2018 for adducing some additional evidence in respect of the injuries and their treatment in ILS Hospitals, Agartala. 8. Having further appreciated the evidence, this court is of the opinion that the finding as returned by the tribunal can hardly be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. The tribunal carries on inquiry, per contra the adversarial mode of trial. The tribunal has not attended the police report, but relied heavily on the FIR. The out-come of investigation has its superior evidentiary value. The approach was grossly faulty. 9. But the appellants did not place the evidence properly and even now in the appellate stage, they have come with an application for additional evidence. In view of this, this case being TS (MAC) 203 of 2013 is remitted back on interfering the impugned judgment. 10. The claimants and the opposite parties be given fresh opportunities of adducing evidence as this Court considers in the emerged circumstances as the better course to follow. After recording the further evidence, the tribunal shall assess the evidence and pass the appropriate judgment within a reasonable time as this is a case relating to the victim of a motor accident. Whatever may be the outcome of the proceeding, be decided at the earliest. 11. Having observed thus, the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2015 delivered in TS (MAC) 203 of 2013 stands quashed. The tribunal shall fix the next date for purpose of evidence within a month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. 12. No order as to costs. Send down the LCR’s forthwith. 13. A copy of this order be furnish to the learned counsel for the parties.