JUDGMENT : The claimant in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. 2. The claim petition was filed stating that the claimant was proceeding to Thodupuzha from Coimbatore on 05.06.2009 in a tempo traveller driven by the first respondent; that he alighted from the vehicle for passing urine in the course of the journey when the vehicle stopped for a while near Amballoor in Thrissur district; that the first respondent took the vehicle forward abruptly while he was mounting back on the vehicle and that, as a result, he fell down on the road and the rear left wheel of the vehicle rolled over his left leg, causing serious injuries to him including fracture of the bones of one of his lower limbs. The case set out in the claim petition, in the circumstances, was that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent and the claimant is, therefore entitled to compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the tempo traveller. The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the vehicle contending, among others, that the vehicle was not involved in any accident on the relevant day and that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by the claimant are not the injuries caused on account of any motor accident. The Tribunal found that the claimant has not established that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by him as pleaded are injuries caused on account of any motor accident, and consequently dismissed the claim petition. As noted, the claimant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the insurer. 4. It is seen that a case was registered by the Police in connection with the alleged occurrence based on the information furnished by the claimant and the first respondent was charge-sheeted in the said case for having caused the accident by negligent driving. The claimant produced before the Tribunal, among others, the charge-sheet laid by the Police against the first respondent to establish the alleged occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. The claimant produced before the Tribunal, among others, the charge-sheet laid by the Police against the first respondent to establish the alleged occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. Since it was specifically contended by the insurer that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by the claimant were not injuries caused on account of any motor accident, the Tribunal took the view that the claimant ought to have adduced evidence in a matter like this to prove the occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. That apart, the Tribunal noticed that the alleged occurrence was informed by the claimant to the Police only after about five days and the claimant has not offered any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal found that the conduct of the claimant in going to a hospital located about 100 kilometres away from the alleged place of occurrence was also suspicious. It is in the above circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has not established that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by him were not injuries caused on account of any motor accident. 5. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal ( 2011(3) KLT 648 ), this court held that chargesheet laid by the police after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee and it is for the party who do not accept such chargesheet to let in evidence to prove negligence on the part of the party against whom negligence is attributed by him. Even before the said judgment, independent evidence to prove negligence on the part of the person against whom negligence is attributed was not insisted by the Tribunals in the State as a practice and the parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal used to let in independent evidence to prove the negligence only in cases where there is no Police case or where the chargesheet laid by the Police is not acceptable to them. But it is seen that in cases where the parties abstain from adducing independent evidence to prove negligence on the part of the indictee placing reliance on the chargesheet laid by the Police, the Tribunal will have no option but to dismiss the claim petition, if it finds that the chargesheet is a collusive one or that the same cannot be accepted for other cogent reasons. Such decisions by the Tribunals would cause grave injustice to the claimants in genuine cases and they may have to approach the appellate forums to get an opportunity to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence alleged as also the negligence attributed. Chapters XI and XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) being social welfare legislations intended to enable the victims of motor accidents to claim compensation for the injuries caused to them, in an expeditious manner and the proceedings before the Tribunal being inquisitorial in nature, I am of the view that in the event the Tribunal finds that the chargesheet laid by the Police which was placed on record to prove the accident and the negligence on the part of the indictee is a collusive one or that the same cannot be accepted for other cogent reasons, it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to record a finding to that effect and call upon the claimant to adduce independent evidence of the occurrence and the negligence attributed against the indictee, before dismissing the claim petition for want of evidence, with a view to give effect to the statutory provisions in its true spirit and to avoid unnecessary delay in the disbursal of compensation in genuine cases. 6. Coming to the case on hand, there is no dispute to the fact that in the case registered at the instance of the claimant, after investigation, the Police came to the conclusion that there was a motor accident as alleged by the claimant; that the said accident was caused by the first respondent on account of negligent driving and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. As noted, the chargesheet laid by the Police was part of the records before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal, in essence, is that the Police charge is a collusive one. As noted, the chargesheet laid by the Police was part of the records before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal, in essence, is that the Police charge is a collusive one. If that be so, the Tribunal should have rendered a finding to that effect and given an opportunity to the claimant to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. In so far as the Tribunal has not adopted the said course, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 7. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the claim petition is remitted for fresh disposal after affording the claimant an opportunity to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence and the negligence attributed against the first respondent. It is made clear that I have not examined the correctness or otherwise of the case set out by the claimant in the claim petition and the Tribunal is free to take appropriate decision having regard to the evidence let in by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.7.2019.