Judgment : 1. The 2nd respondent against whom the Tribunal has made an award has filed this appeal to set aside the award, inter alia contending that the claimant had not adduced any evidence to prove the issue of negligence and nature of injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal had no justification to award compensation. 2. The law is fairly well-settled that in an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), the claimant has to not only plead negligence and nature of injuries, but also establish negligence and nature of injuries to get compensation. 3. In the case on hand, the claimant after filing the claim petition had never appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had also taken trouble to issue Court notice to claimant, which is not contemplated under the Act, more particularly when the case was filed before the Tribunal, which decided the claim. Therefore, I am of the view procedure adopted by the Tribunal to award compensation is contrary to provisions of Section 166 of the Act. The proceedings before the Tribunal are governed by Chapter VII of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Rule 254 of the said Rules provides for procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. The provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are made applicable to the proceedings before Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had no justification to award compensation when the claimant had not come forward to adduce evidence to prove negligence and nature of injuries suffered by him. 4. In the result, I pass the following: The appeal is accepted. The impugned award is set aside. The claim petition is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to her.