Judgment : Claimant in MVC No.185 of 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga is the appellant. Parties be referred according to their ranking in Court below for convenience. 2. The case of the claimant is that he is the owner of a tractor and trailer HMT-3522. On 9-9-2000 at about 4.00 p.m. on Chitradurga-Challakere road, the driver of the tractor was transporting jelly from Lambanihatty to deliver it to his farm house of the petitioner at J.N. Kote. While so, the driver of the bus running under the name and style of Elahi bus, bearing registration No. KA 34/431 has dashed against the tractor. On account of it tractor is damaged completely. Police have registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2000. So, pray for awarding a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. Insurer has filed the objections, call upon the petitioner to prove accident, impact of the accident, contends liability is strictly in accordance with terms of the policy. In reply state tractor trailer HMT-3522 is of 1999 model, claim is exaggerate pray for dismissal of application. Learned Trial Judge has framed issues. Permitted parties to lead evidence P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined, Exs.P.1 to P.16 are marked, policy copy is marked as Ex.R.1. 3. Learned Trial Judge has allowed the application in part, fixed compensation of Rs.54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. 4. Award of the compensation of the learned Trial Judge is challenged in this appeal. Learned Advocate for the claimant invites the attention of this Court, to motor vehicle Inspector’s report as per Ex.P.16. Contend that the inspector has certified that the vehicle is completely damaged. On account of financial difficulty of the claimant, he could not get it repaired. It is not a ground to reject the claim. So, pray for enhancing the compensation. 5. Learned Advocate for the insurance company submits that the vehicle is of 1999 model and it is sufficiently used. So, method of assessment of the learned Trial Judge is proper. 6. Points that arise for my consideration is as under: 7. Positive case of the claimant is that the vehicle is damaged, Ex.P.14-M.V. Report is issued by the motor vehicle Inspector, M.V. Inspector certifies that the tractor body is crushed, almost all parts are damaged. The Inspector specifically states including all the parts. 6. Points that arise for my consideration is as under: 7. Positive case of the claimant is that the vehicle is damaged, Ex.P.14-M.V. Report is issued by the motor vehicle Inspector, M.V. Inspector certifies that the tractor body is crushed, almost all parts are damaged. The Inspector specifically states including all the parts. Why such evidence has to be rejected is not found in the entire reasoning of the learned Trial Judge. The findings of the Motor Vehicle Inspector are reflected in photos Exs.P.12 to P.14. Diesel marks, engine damage are also reflected. Though positive photographs are marked, there is no material in the cross-examination to disbelieve the damage pleaded to the tractor. In addition to the above, the value of the vehicle is more than 2.00 lakhs. So, this Court accepts the submission of the Advocate for the appellant. Holds that the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge in granting only Rs.54,000/- requires interference. 8. In addition to it, accident being reported to the Insurance Company is reflected. Except marking of the policy, company has not examined any witness. 9. One more contention urged by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company is that it is for the claimant to get the vehicle surveyed and then submit report of the surveyor. Claimant has moved to the Court, it is his duty cast upon the claimant to prove the case. It is his submission, that plaintiff has to prove the case cannot fall back of the weakness of the defendant. This subject is considered by Apex Court in Arumugham (dead) by L.Rs and Others v Sundarambal and Another ( AIR 1999 SC 2216 : (1999) 4 SCC 350 ), Apex Court held, when both parties lead evidence, burden of proof becomes insignificant. If MV report is disputed by Insurance Company it could have lead evidence. So submission of Advocate for Insurance Company is rejected. Evidence of claimant is accepted. 10. In the light of the above, the following order is passed: “Whether the appellant has made out a case for enhancing the compensation. If so, for what amount?” ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed with costs. (ii) Award Rs. 1,15,000/- in place of Rs. 54,000/- awarded by the lower Court. (iii) Cost fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.