JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2011 passed in MCOP.No.150 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram. 2. The only contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident by the deceased and his death and that the claimants have not produced any documents to show that the accident had taken place on 25.03.2004 and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased died due to accidental injuries is liable to be set aside. The quantum of compensation is not disputed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants in order to prove that the accident had occurred on 25.03.2004, produced the accident register/wound certificate before this Court and submitted that merely because the above accident register was not produced before the Tribunal, it cannot be held that the accident had not taken place on the said date. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Though the appellant contended that the claimants had not proved that the accident had taken place on 25.03.2004, perusal of record shows that no rebuttal evidence was let in to disprove the evidence produced by the claimants and the 4th respondent/rider of the offending motorcycle remained ex-parte and therefore, the Tribunal relying upon the evidence on the side of the claimants and Ex.P1-FIR lodged by PW1/1st respondent herein against the 4th respondent, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 4th respondent. 6. Perusal of record further shows that the accident has occurred on 25.03.2004 and the deceased died on 16.09.2004 after more than 5½ months. The claimants have also examined the Doctor who treated the deceased as PW2. PW2 in his evidence has stated that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries. The relevant portion of PW2 is as follows:- “TAMIL” 7. The claimants have produced the Accident Register/Wound Certificate dated 25.03.2004 issued by Dr. R. Mohandhas, M.B.B.S., Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, which is as follows:- ''Alleged to have been involved in a road traffic accident hit by a motor bike on 25.03.04 at about 8.00 p.m while walking in the road side at Puliyoorkurichy 1. Patient semiconscious Qx Pulse 68/ml, Pupils sluggish reaction with evidence of brain injury. 2. R. Mohandhas, M.B.B.S., Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, which is as follows:- ''Alleged to have been involved in a road traffic accident hit by a motor bike on 25.03.04 at about 8.00 p.m while walking in the road side at Puliyoorkurichy 1. Patient semiconscious Qx Pulse 68/ml, Pupils sluggish reaction with evidence of brain injury. 2. Lacertated wound 1x3x1cm left paraital area 3. Lacerated wound left leg 2 x 3. 4. Contusion with abrasion 1 x 2 cm left shoulder. X-Ray Skull AP/Lat No fracture Leg AP/Lat – No fracture. CT SCAN 29.03.04 Thin sub dural hydroma in fronto parietal region bilaterally Opinion : Injury No.1 is grievous and 2, 3 and 4 are simple in nature.'' 8. Ex.P5-Treatment Certificate dated 27.09.2004 issued Dr. (med) R.Mohandhas, Orthopaedic, Trauma and Spine Surgeon, Sushrushah Hospital, Nagercoil, is also filed before this Court, which is as follows:- ''The above patient was admitted in the hospital on 25-03-2004 with the diagnosis of Head injury Lacerated wound left paraital area Lacertated wound left leg skin depth Contusion with abrasion left shoulder He was treated with wound suturing and supportive conservative treatment for head injury. He was discharged from the hospital on 02-04-2004. He took treatment as outpatient on 08-04-2004 and 16-04-2004.'' 9. From the above extracts of the evidence of PW2, Accident Register/Wound Certificate and Ex.P5-Treatment Certificate, it is clear that the death of the deceased happened only due to the accidental injuries. The age of the deceased was 75 years at the time of accident and the date of accident viz., 25.03.2004 and death of the deceased viz., 16.09.2004 is not too remote and it is the categorical evidence of PW2 that the death of the deceased caused due to fits which he suffered due to accidental injuries. Though the appellant contended that the deceased not died due to accidental injuries, they did not let in any evidence to prove the same. On the contra, the evidence of the claimant amply proves that the death caused due to accidental injuries. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation is not interfered with. 10. On the contra, the evidence of the claimant amply proves that the death caused due to accidental injuries. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation is not interfered with. 10. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of the claim petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares in the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal without filing any formal permission petition before the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.