The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurer to provide evidence to support the claim of false implication and the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Belagavi and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed in MVC No. 2726/2013 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belagavi have filed these appeals.

2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 26.07.2013 at about 8-45 a.m. the petitioner was returning from his agricultural land along with his father to his home. When he reached near village outer limits of Lagameshwar, Gokak Taluka, rider of Hero Honda Splendor bearing No. KA-49/J-8647 drove the same in very high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed to the petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries. He took treatment at Vijaya Hospital by spending a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He was earning a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. by doing agriculture. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle.

3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal and respondent No. 1 filed the written statement, denied the petition averments. Respondent No. 1 specifically contended that he is not responsible for the accident. His motorcycle was insured with respondent No. 2. Hence, in case of liability, it may be saddled against Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed detailed written statement, denied all the petition averments. Further, contended that the bike of the respondent No. 1 was never involved in the accident. In fact, the petitioner had fallen from a two wheeler and sustained injuries. A false case was filed against respondent No. 1 before the police to claim compensation from respondent No. 2. Therefore, respondent No. 2 prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined as PW-1 and 3 other witnesses as PWs. 2 to 4 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Per contra, the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company got examined its witness as RW-1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.4. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,77,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent No. 2 being the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

5. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed MFA No. 103283/2015 on the grounds that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case and insurer is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA. Crob. No. 100196/2015 on the ground that the Tribunal has considered income of the petitioner on lower side and disability is also considered on lower side and needs to enhance.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

8. A Short question which arise for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant owner has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimant has made out ground for enchantment of compensation?

9. The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-49/J-8647 was not at all involved in the accident and the same has been implicated in order to claim compensation and that the case of the claimant is fall from motor bike as stated before the doctor, which is contrary in the pleading that the motor cycle dashed against him and therefore, the learned counsel submitted that liability saddled against the insurer is liable to be set aside.

10. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that respondent No. 1 has admitted the accident in his written statement and he has pleaded guilty before the criminal court admitting the accident, and that the insurer has not challenged the criminal case. Therefore, only on the statement recorded by the doctor that the petitioner sust