1. The appeal M.F.A. No. 7203/2013 filed by the insurer assailing the imposition of the liability and the appeal M.F.A. No. 8282/2013 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation ordered by the Tribunal are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The parties herein are referred to by their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts made out in the claim petition are that the claimant who was travelling in the TVS Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-70B-7362 met with an accident when the Tractor bearing Registration No. CNR-3355 collided with the petitioner’s vehicle and the said Tractor was said to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner is stated to have suffered grievous injuries to his head, groin and other parts of the body.

4. It is stated that the petitioner was initially admitted to Balaji Nursing home and later shifted to NIMHANS and then to St. Johns Hospital for further treatment and has continued to take treatment till date. It is stated that the petitioner was working as a power loom operator and was said to be drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has been put to great financial loss and a claim petition as against the insurer of the Tractor and also against the owner of the Tractor had been filed.

5. The owner of the tractor has remained ex-parte before the Tribunal while the insurer has contested the claim petition by filing written statement/objections on 20.4.2012 and additional written statement/objections on 23.9.2012.

6. The contentions made out by the insurer which are of relevance as regards the present appeals are that the vehicle of the second respondent was sought to be falsely implicated in the accident, that there was no policy taken as regards the trailer and hence, there was no liability as regards the petitioner in terms of the judgment in the case Oriental Insurance Company vs. D. Laxman and Others, ILR 2006 Kar 4355, which mandates that the trailer was also required to be insured. It was also contended that the tractor did not have a valid permit and such a lapse would exempt liability of the insurer.

7. The other defences usually taken by the insurer were also raised to the effect that driver of the tractor did not have a valid and effective driving licence and there has been denial as regards the other factual averments.

8. After evidence on both sides, the Tribunal has allowed the claim in part awarding compensation and has negatived the defence of the insurer.

9. Appeal of the appellant-insurer:

The insurer has challenged the judgment and award of the Tribunal and has raised the same contentions in the grounds of appeal as were taken in the written statement/ objections filed before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the insurer has raised the contention that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose, as the trailer fitted to the tractor was a water tanker, such action resulted in a fundamental breach of the terms of the policy.

It is also contended that the owner of the vehicle was not the second respondent, viz., Krishnappa and in fact, the owner was one Mr. Manjunath.

As regards the contention that Krishnappa was not the owner and hence, the claim petition was not maintainable, the said contention stands on weak footing and is not supported by any material on record. In fact, the insurer has admitted in the affidavit filed on 01.02.2013 at para3 that policy was issued in the name of Krishnappa and that the said Krishnappa was the owner of the vehicle as reflected in the R.C. book as on the date of issuance of policy. The averment in the affidavit of RW-1 is sufficient to repel the contention of the insurer.

As regards the contention that the vehicle was being put to commercial use, the said contenti