Judgment :- A.K. Rajan, J This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.442 of 1987 dated 31-01-1996. 2. The husband of one Sathiavani who died in a motor accident that took place on 16-10-79, has preferred the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,000/-. To prove the claim, the petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs. P-1 and P-2. On the side of the respondents no witness has been examined or any document marked. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal fixed the liability on both the vehicles namely lorry and car and directed 50 per cent of the compensation to be paid to each of the insurance companies of the lorry and the car, and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by this award, the United India Insurance Company Limited/fourth respondent in the O.P. has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/4th respondent submitted that on the date of the accident, the vehicle namely car which is involved in the accident, was not insured with their Insurance Company and therefore they are not liable to pay any amount towards compensation. In support of his argument, the learned counsel pointed out that they have also raised this point in their counter filed before the Tribunal, that the same has also been extracted in the award, that the Tribunal has not decided this issue as to whether the car was insured with the fourth respondent or not, and that, therefore, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. On examining the evidence produced in this case, a specific question has been put by the counsel for the 4th respondent during the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the vehicle was not insured with the fourth respondent. To that, the answer of P.W.1 was that he does not know about that. It is to be noted that apart from this evidence, the fourth respondent has not examined his witness to prove that the vehicle has not been insured with their Insurance Company. The mere suggestion to the witness cannot replace the evidence. To that, the answer of P.W.1 was that he does not know about that. It is to be noted that apart from this evidence, the fourth respondent has not examined his witness to prove that the vehicle has not been insured with their Insurance Company. The mere suggestion to the witness cannot replace the evidence. If really the fourth respondent/appellant herein was interested in proving their case, they ought to have examined their own witness to prove that the vehicle was not insured with their Insurance company, especially when the car Number has been specifically mentioned and the branch office of the Insurance Company has also been specifically mentioned in the claim petition itself. The learned counsel referred to a judgment of the Orissa High Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,v. RAMAKRISHNA DAS, reported in 1993 ACJ 668 where it was held: (para 5) "5...In this case the claimant has simply mentioned in item 16 of the application for compensation that the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Mangalebag, Cuttack, is the insurer of the vehicle. No further particulars as to policy number, etc., have been mentioned. In such facts can it be said that it is the duty of the insurance company to make a positive statement as to whether the assertion of the claimant is true or not?...." 4. The learned counsel has also cited another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. ANGA CHINNI BABU, reported in 1992 ACJ 281 wherein the learned Judge has observed that,(para 4) "4. The owner and the driver were served but they are absent. The court has to consider in this case, about the burden of proof, in a case where the polic6y itself has not yet been filed. It is very difficult for the claimants to produce a policy as the policy is generally presumed to be with the owner of the vehicle. In almost all the cases the owners are not giving any assistance to the court as they fell that even in their absence the liability will be fixed on the insurance company. If the claimants have not produced any materials to show that there is policy at hat point of time the burden can never shift. In almost all the cases the owners are not giving any assistance to the court as they fell that even in their absence the liability will be fixed on the insurance company. If the claimants have not produced any materials to show that there is policy at hat point of time the burden can never shift. Their duty is only to show that a particular vehicle involved in the accident was insured with a particular company with a particular policy number...." Relying upon these two judgments, the learned counsel argued that it is difficult for the Insurance Company to ascertain whether the vehicle has been insured with their company and that the burden is only on the claimants to prove that the vehicle has been insured with the 4th respondent. Having failed to prove that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the fourth respondent. 5. With due respect to the learned Judges, we are unable to agree with the decisions of the High Courts of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. It is impossible for the poor litigants who come before the Tribunal to ascertain the insurance particulars independently. At the most, they can only give the car number and the company in which it was insured. In this case, the branch office in which the vehicle has been insured has also been specifically mentioned and the registration number of the car has also been mentioned. With these particulars, it is very easy for the Insurance Company to ascertain whether the car has been registered in their Branch Office or any other Region. In these days where the communication has so advanced, we are of the view that it is the Insurance company which could have easily ascertained this fact. Further, merely suggesting to a witness that the vehicle has not been insured is not sufficient. As already pointed out, the 4th respondent has failed to discharge its onus to prove by adducing evidence and to deny that the vehicle has not been insured with the fourth respondent. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the award of compensation has to be shared equally by the two Insurance Companies. 6. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the award of compensation has to be shared equally by the two Insurance Companies. 6. Considering the fact that the amount awarded is only Rs.30,000/- and the liability of the fourth respondent/appellant herein is only Rs.15,000/-, we also do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Both the C.M.Ps., are closed.