The burden of proof of the terms of the insurance policy lies with the insurer, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are intended to protect the victims of motor vehicle accidents.

1. Appellant herein filed claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short'The Act') claiming total amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation under various heads on account of injuries sustained by him in the course of an accident. He impleaded the owners, drivers and insurers of two vehicles. Some of the respondents including the insurers contested. Tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 2,100/- with costs, fixing advocate's fee at Rs. 150/-. Being dissatisfied with the award, claimant has filed this appeal.

2. Sri K. S. Rajamony representing the Indian Association of Lawyers, Kerala Chapter has been requested to give legal aid to the appellant. Sri Rajamony has addressed arguments on behalf of the appellant.

3. On 13-9-1976 at about 12 noon, appellant was a passenger in bus KLH 2185 belonging to the second respondent. When the bus reached Orkkatteri, another bus KLZ 5295 belonging to the fifth respondent came from the opposite side. There was collision between the two buses as a result of which appellant sustained severe injuries and lost 11 of his teeth. Appellant alleged that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of drivers of both the vehicles viz., respondents 1 and 4. Second respondent is the owner and third respondent is the insurer of vehicle KLH 2185. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex parte. Third respondent filed written statement stating that the insurer does not admit that the accident was due to the rash or negligent driving on the part of the first respondent and alleging that the accident occurred due to the utter negligence of the driver of bus KLZ 5295. The insurer also put the claimant to strict proof of the fact that the vehicle KLH 2165 had valid insurance policy and that it was plying at the time of the accident in accordance with the conditions of the permit and policy. Fifth respondent sought to put the blame on the first respondent. Sixth respondent put the claimant to strict proof of the allegations in the application.

4. Tribunal held that the accident took place due to negligent driving of bus KLH 2185 by the first respondent, driver under the second respondent. Tribunal further held that there was no evidence let in by the claimant to show that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent and found that the owner and driver were liable but not the alleged insurer. On the question of quantum, Tribunal rejected the claim of Rs. 90/- towards expenses incurred for transport of the injured to hospital and Rs. 300/- claimed for extra nourishment. Tribunal allowed Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering and awarded only Rs. 100/- towards loss of earnings. Thus, in all, Rs. 2,100/- was awarded.

5. Finding of the Tribunal that driver of bus KLH 2185 of which claimant was a passenger drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner leading to the accident is which the claimant sustained injuries and therefore the driver and constructively the owner are liable to pay compensation, is not challenged before us. Appellant challenges the finding of the Tribunal exonerating third respondent, impleaded as

the insurer of this vehicle. Exoneration rested on the fact that the claimant adduced no evidence to show that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent.

6. It appears to us that this approach of the Tribunal was wholly erroneous. In the claim petition, it was definitely alleged that the third respondent, The United India Fire & General Insurance Co., Ltd., was the insurer of the vehicle and the third respondent was also liable for compensation. In the written statement filed by the third respondent, only response in this behalf was as follows:

"This Respondent does not admit that the vehicle KLH 2165 was covered with a valid insurance policy and that it was plying at the time of accident in accordance with the conditions of the permit and the policy. The applicant is