The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the involvement of the vehicle in the accident; the Tribunal's award of compensation is upheld as just and reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 12^th March 2015 passed in MVC No.551/2009 (Old No.991/2009) by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, at Pandavapura (for short 'Tribunal').

2. MFA No.6519/2015 is filed by Insurer questioning its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of false involvement of the vehicle and MFA.Crob No.127/2015 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the claimant that, on 26.02.2009 the claimant Channegowda was traveling as a passenger in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-11-8512 from Pandavapura towards Pattasomanahalli. The driver of the autorickshaw was driving it in a rash and negligent manner, due to the same the vehicle toppled. The claimant Channegowda sustained grievous injuries, and he took treatment. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered disability. With these reasons, the claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied contentions of the claimant. He further contended that said vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2. If claim petition is allowed then respondent No.2 would be liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claimant. It is contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the case to claim compensation. It is also contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. The claimant to prove his case examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and marked 175 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-175. Respondent No.2-Insurer examined four witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4. (The learned trial Court Judge in the impugned award has not mentioned names of the witnesses and documents produced by the respondent No.2. Even in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, it is only mentioned that RWs.1 and 2 were examined, though respondent No.2 examined in all, four witnesses).

8. It appears that earlier respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal and remained ex-parte. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter awarded compensation by its judgment and award dated 21^st July 2011. The respondent No.2 filed Misc. Petition No.1/2013 before the very same Court under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC praying to set aside the ex-parte award passed against it. The said petition was allowed. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.551/2009 was set aside and MVC No.551/2009 was restored. It also appears that, in the interregnum, the claimant filed an appeal in MFA No.13661/2012 before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. After the order passed in Crl.Misc.P.No.1/2013, the appellant filed memo before this Court to withdraw the appeal in MFA No.13661/2012 and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 12^th March 2015. It held that the accident had occurred due to involvement of the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-11- 8512 and awarded foll