Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. 1. These two appeals by the Insurer and by the claimant are arising out of the same judgment and award dated11/06/2008 passed in MVC No.3771/2006, by the XVI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14), (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short). 2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,80,000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.36,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. T.N.Naveen Kumar in the road traffic accident. 3. It is the case of the Insurer that, deceased was not a pillion rider and he was a rider of the two wheeler, but the Tribunal treating him as a pillion rider, allowed the claim petition contrary to the entry found in the inpatient case records of K.R. Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore, he submitted that issuing a direction by the Tribunal to the Insurer to indemnify the award amount cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Whereas, it is the case of the claimant that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased Sri. T.N. Naveen Kumar is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced. 4. The brief facts of the case of the claimant are, that on 9.4.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing No.KA.51.E.2916 along with his friend Manjunatha and Manjnatha was riding the sad bike and when they were returning to the village from Sarjapur, rider of the motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and suddenly applied brakes near Weight bridge. Due to the said impact, the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, deceased has been taken to K.R. Hospital, but inspite of best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 13.4.2006. 5. It is the further case of the claimant that, deceased was aged about 22 years and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was a medical student studying in III year MBBS and he had completed I and II year of MBBS course. 5. It is the further case of the claimant that, deceased was aged about 22 years and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was a medical student studying in III year MBBS and he had completed I and II year of MBBS course. Due to his untimely death, claimant has lost her son who was her future hope and security, apart from mental shock and agony and she is deprived of the love and affection of her son. Therefore, claimant along with her husband has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents. 6. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has allowed the said petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, fastening the liability on the Insurer. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurer has filed an appeal for modification of the same and the claimant has filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation, as stated supra. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for Insurer and learned counsel appearing for claimant. 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has failed to consider the specific stand taken by the Insurer in para-7 of its statement of objection, wherein, it is specifically contended by the Insurer that, deceased was not a pillion rider and he was a rider of the motor cycle. But this fact has not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal, nor it has framed necessary issue as to "whether the deceased was a pillion rider or rider of the two wheeler", for its consideration. But, it is has proceeded on the presumption that deceased was a pillion rider of the two wheeler and allowed the claim petition awarding the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/-fastening liability on the Insurer. But, it is has proceeded on the presumption that deceased was a pillion rider of the two wheeler and allowed the claim petition awarding the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/-fastening liability on the Insurer. To substantiate the submission that deceased was not a pillion rider and he was a rider of the two wheeler, learned counsel appearing for Insurer has placed reliance on the certified copy of the Inpatient Case Record of the deceased issued by the Authorized Officer of the K.R. Hospital, Bangalore, which was produced along with IA No..I/2013 and submitted that, in Col.No.2 of the said record which pertains to "Complaints with duration", it is clearly mentioned as " alleged c/o RTA at about 9-30 to 9-45 p.m. on 9.4.06 at Sarjapura, was riding two wheeler". This would clearly substantiate the stand taken by the Insurer at para-7 of its statement of objection at para-7. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matters may be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh and to decide the same, after permitting both the parties to adduce their additional oral and documentary evidence. 9. As against this, learned counsel for the claimant, inter-alia contended that, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the deceased was a pillion rider and not a rider of the two wheeler on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after assigning valid reasons in para-12 of its judgment and justified in not accepting the stand taken by the Insurer in its objection that deceased was a rider of two wheeler and not a pillion rider. Therefore, interference by this Court, at this stage, is not justifiable, that too, when the claimant who was the mother has lost her son who was studying in III year MBBS and when she has also lost her husband during the pendency of the petition and therefore, it is not a fit case to remand the matters to the Tribunal for reconsideration as submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurer. Further, she has submitted that, the compensational awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. 10. Further, she has submitted that, the compensational awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Sri. T.N.Naveen Kumar are not in depute. It is the specific case of the Insurer that, it has taken a specific stand in para7 of its statement of objection that, deceased was not a pillion rider and he was a rider of two wheeler, but the Tribunal has failed to frame necessary issue on this point for its consideration and proceeded on the presumption that deceased was a pillion rider. Further, it emerges from Col.No.2 of the certified copy of Inpatient Case Record produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer which was issued by the Authorized Officer of K.R. Hospital, Bangalore, that, "the alleged c/of RTA at about 9.30-9.45 p.m. on 9.4.2006 at Sarjapura, was riding two wheeler" . Further, it emerges that, it is a fact that the specific stand taken by the Insurer in its objection is not considered or appreciated by the Tribunal or has framed necessary issue on this aspect for its consideration, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurer and therefore, the matters require reconsideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not propose to express any view which may effect the stand to be taken by the respective parties to substantiate their case. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of this case, it would be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed as devoid of merits.. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed as devoid of merits.. The impugned judgment and award dated 11/06/2008 passed in MVC No.3771/2006, by the XVI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH- 14), is hereby set aside and the matters stand remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh with a direction to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the insurer and claimant personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal. The Insurer and claimant are permitted to file necessary applications before the Tribunal to lead further evidence both oral and documentary within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event, if such applications are filed by the parties, within the time stipulated above, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and proceed further and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, in terms of the above directions issued by this Court . The Insurer and claimant are directed to appear before the Tribunal either personally or though their counsel on 18th November 2013 at 11.00 a.m to take further dates of hearing. Registry is directed to return the entire original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. The amount deposited by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, immediately. Further, the jurisdictional Tribunal is directed to invest the same in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank until further orders, which is subject to the result of the judgment to be passed by the Tribunal. If the learned counsel for the Insurer files a memo for return of the certified copy of the In patient Case Record of K.R. Hospital, Bangalore, produced by him along with I.A.No.I/2013, Registry is directed to return the same, forthwith. Ordered accordingly.