JUDGMENT : C.M. Poonacha, J. The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 3.2.2012 passed in MVC.No.252/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hassan [Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'] 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, which is alleged to have been occurred on 13.6.2001, one Sri. Manjegowda[Hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased claimant'] filed a claim petition in MVC No.252/2010 before the Tribunal arraying the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-13/R.1654 as respondents. 4. The insurer who is arrayed as respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed the counter statement. It is relevant to note that the claim petition was filed on 6.2.2007 by deceased claimant claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Subsequently, in view of the fact that said Sri. Manjegowda died on 4.4.2007 vide order dated 10.7.2008 the wife of the deceased was permitted to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 27.5.2010 wherein, IA.6 for amendment was allowed. The insurer filed an additional counter statement on 25.11.2010 wherein the insurer has specifically taken a contention that the amended claim petition is not maintainable having regard to the fact that the original claimant - Manjegowda having died during the pendency of the claim petition, the cause of action to claim compensation also does not survive. It is also denied that the death is attributable to the alleged injury suffered in the accident and there is no connection between the death and the injury alleged in the accident. 5. The wife of the deceased Manjegowda namely Smt. Jayamma examined herself as PW.1 and examined 2 witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. The policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 3.2.2012 allowed the claim petition and directed the owner and insurer to jointly and severally pay the said Smt. Jayamma a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- together with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that consequent to the death of the original claimant Sri. 2,86,000/- together with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that consequent to the death of the original claimant Sri. Manjegowda and pursuant to the amendment made, the Tribunal has not appreciated the relevant facts or recorded any finding as to whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is further submitted that even the issues are not re-casted consequent to the death of the original claimant. It is further submitted that there is no nexus between the death of the original claimant and the injuries caused in the alleged accident. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent - wife of original claimant submits that the injuries as are forthcoming from Ex.P4 clearly demonstrates that the original claimant had suffered injury to the spine. That it is also forthcoming from the evidence of the doctors PWs.2 and 3 wherein, in detail the nature of treatment that has been taken by the original claimant has been placed on record and hence it is clear that the death has occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the above appeal. 8. The submissions made by both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with? 9. It is forthcoming from the records of the Tribunal that consequent to the claim petition having been filed on 6.2.2007, the insurer who was arrayed as respondent No.2 entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections which has been taken on record vide order dated 28.12.2007. Thereafter, issues have been framed on 30.4.2008 and the matter was posted for evidence. Subsequently, IA.No.5 is filed under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, IA No.6 under Order 22, Rule 9 CPC and IA.No.7 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 30.4.2008 which was allowed on 10.7.2008 wherein, the wife of the original Claimant namely, Smt. Jayamma has come on record as the legal representative of the deceased claimant. Subsequently, IA.No.5 is filed under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, IA No.6 under Order 22, Rule 9 CPC and IA.No.7 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 30.4.2008 which was allowed on 10.7.2008 wherein, the wife of the original Claimant namely, Smt. Jayamma has come on record as the legal representative of the deceased claimant. Thereafter, on 2.4.2009 IA.6 was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, which was allowed on 27.5.2010. 10. It is further forthcoming from para 4 of the judgment of the Tribunal that issues that have been framed were the issues that were framed vide order dated 30.4.2008 which are extracted herein below for ready reference: "1. Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.KA13/ R.1654 by its rider and he sustained injuries alleged? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitle for compensation? Is o what is the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded and who is liable to pay the same? 3. To what order? 11. It is clear from the aforementioned that consequent to the legal representative of the original claimant coming on record and consequent to the application for amendment being allowed, even the issues have not be re-casted. 12. Further, it is forthcoming from the reasoning of the Tribunal as set out at para 10 of the judgment that the aspect as to whether the death of the original claimant occurred as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident in question has not even been referred to and there is no finding given with regard to the said aspect of the matter. 13. In view of the aforementioned, it is absolutely clear that the Tribunal has not considered the matter having regard to the specific objections raised by the insurer. In that view of the matter, it just and proper that the judgment and award be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to re-cast the issues and conduct further proceedings in accordance with law. 14. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 15. In that view of the matter, it just and proper that the judgment and award be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to re-cast the issues and conduct further proceedings in accordance with law. 14. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 15. In view of the fact that the accident is of the year 2006 and the claim petition is pending since 2007, it is just and proper that a time frame be specified for expeditious disposal of the matter. 16. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The above appeal is allowed; ii) The judgment and award dated 3.2.2012 passed in MVC.No.252/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hassan, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal; iii) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 19.2.2024 without the requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard; iv) Consequent to the appearance of the parties, the Tribunal shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 6 months from the date of appearance of the parties. v) Parties are at liberty to make a request before the Tribunal for adducing of additional evidence and if such a request is made, the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. vi) Registry to return the records of the Tribunal to the Tribunal forthwith. vii) The amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be transferred to the Tribunal which shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank for a minimum period with automatic renewal clause and shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the Tribunal in the claim proceedings.