The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial evidence in determining liability and compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, and the limitations of inquest reports in establishing liability.

AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is by the insurer questioning the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal both on the question of liability as well as quantum. Indeed, we notice that two claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal MVC Nos. 522/2003 and 523/2003. Both the claim petitions are accepted by the Tribunal. The insurer has satisfied the claim insofar as MVC No. 523/2003 is concerned. But, however, has questioned the judgment and award passed in MVC 522/2003 on various grounds.

3. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, few facts are required to be noted.

4. That on the fateful day of 25.6.2003, one of the occupants of the vehicle one Bidesh Nair, who is the claimant in the other claim petition and his friends and deceased B.P. Anantha Krishna were proceeding from Bangalore to Kundapura in a motor car, which is of the ownership of respondent No. 3. When the occupants of the vehicle were proceeding on national highway 48 near Karekere Forest, the driver of the said car was driving the said vehicle in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, the occupant of the car Dr. B.P. Anantha Krishna died on the spot from the injuries sustained all over his body. The claimant in other claim petitions and his friends sustained injuries all over their bodies. After the accident, the claimant in. another claim petition and his friends were shifted to hospital where treatment was given. The present claim petition is filed by the mother as well as the sister of the deceased claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased Dr. B.P. Anantha Krishna was a dentist and was earning a sum of Rs. 42,000/- p.m. and was contributing his entire earnings to sustain the family. The claim petition would also state that the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No. 92/2002 as against the driver of the car and a charge sheet is also filed.

5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the insurer enters appearance, files statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The insurer would contend that the claim itself is frivolous, false and vexatious. They would take up a specific contention before the Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for compensation. They would also contend that a false case has been hoisted as against the driver of the vehicle and a charge sheet is filed, so that the insurer is made liable to answer the claim.

6. The owner of the vehicle enters appearance and contests the claim petition. He would admit, that he is the owner of the vehicle in question, but, however, would deny the rash and negligence. During the course of enquiry the claimants have examined P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 2 is the occupant of the car and claimant in the other claim petition who would speak about the accident and P.W. 1 is the sister of the deceased. Through these two witnesses as many as 22 documents were marked, i.e., Exs. P1 to P22. Incidentally we also note that the insurer has not examined anyone and has not marked any documents.

7. The learned member of the Tribunal having regard to the evidence let in by the claimants and with reference to the documentary evidence was of the view that indeed, the deceased was not driving the vehicle in question. But it was the driver as against whom a charge sheet has been filed. The Tribunal has relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 who was an occupant of the car. He has also relied on the subsequent statement made by the complainant. Hence, has recorded a finding that indeed, it is the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and not the decea