THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A. No. 5434 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.04.2008 in O.P.No.294 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderbad, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner/appellant herein, claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed a claim application seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 25.12.2006. The 1st respondent who is the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim application. 4. After enquiry, the Tribunal dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the injuries by producing necessary medical evidence. As seen from the LC record, one Dr. Anjaiah of Sai Sanjeevini Hospital, where the claimant is said to have undergone treatment, is examined as PW3 by the Advocate Commissioner and the evidence in chief and cross-examination of the said witness was filed by the Advocate Commissioner along with his report on 04.04.2008. The Tribunal obviously overlooked the said fact and passed the impugned order as if no medical evidence was produced. Even in the appendix of the evidence also, the name of the said Dr. Anjaiah is found missing. The claimant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim of injuries and treatment and medical expenses. As the Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the ground that no medical evidence is adduced to prove the injuries, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider the same afresh, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, including the evidence of Dr.Anjaiah who was examined as PW3, and pass appropriate orders in the O.P. 5. Having regard to the fact that the said O.P. is of the year 2007, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal, as stated above. 6. In the result, the appeal is disposed of, as stated above. Office to return the LC record, along with a copy of this order, within a week. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd November, 2011 KSM