JUDGMENT : B. Sreenivase Gowda, J. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability. 2. The Tribunal by judgment and award impugned in this appeal, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.40,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the appellant-Insurance Co. and respondent No. 2-owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount jointly and severally. 3. I have heard Sri L. Narasimha Murthy for Sri. Ashwathanarayan, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri. R. Shashidhar, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent-claimant. There is no representation for respondent No. 2-owner of the vehicle. 4. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the first respondent - claimant in the road traffic accident occurred on 30.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2868 by its driver and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: 'Whether finding of the Tribunal on liability in fastening it on the appellant - Insurance company by holding that the insurer has not proved that the offending lorry is not insured with them is sustainable in law?' 5. Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy the Learned Counsel, for the appellant-Insurance Company submits though the appellant-Insurance Company in their statement of objections itself denied the contention of the claimant that the offending lorry was insured with the appellant and the claimant has not established the said contention by adducing cogent evidence to that effect the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening liability on the appellant. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal insofar as liability is concerned. 6. Sri. R. Shashidhar, Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-claimant submits that claimant is prepared to receive the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either from the appellant-Insurance Co. or from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 7. The first respondent herein after referred to as claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before MACT, Holalkere seeking compensation from respondent No. 2 and the appellant describing them as owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident they are herein after referred to as owner and Insurance Co. respectively. 8. 7. The first respondent herein after referred to as claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before MACT, Holalkere seeking compensation from respondent No. 2 and the appellant describing them as owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident they are herein after referred to as owner and Insurance Co. respectively. 8. Perusal of the judgment impugned in the appeal would show respondent No. 2-owner of the vehicle though was served with the notice of claim petition before the Tribunal remained absent and he was placed ex-parte. The appellant-Insurance Company arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the claim petition was represented through their Counsel and they filed their statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the offending lorry was not insured with them and the driver of the lorry' had no valid and effective driving licence and liability of the insurance company is subject to proof of validity of R.C., F.C., and D.L. 9. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. 'Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30.4.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. near the Kana of Basavalingappa, B-Durga, Holalkere taluk, involving vehicle bearing reg. No. KA.16/A-2868 belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No. 2? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle? 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum and from whom?' 10. The claimant in support of his case that he had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 30.4.2007 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-16/A-2868 and the said lorry was insured with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company (appellant herein) and he has spent certain amount towards medical and incident expenses has examined himself as PW.1 and has produced FIR, Spot Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar, IMV report, Wound certificate, charge sheet, discharge card, medical bills and prescriptions which were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. 11. 11. On behalf of the insurance company, one K.P. Vijayakumar, working as Administrative Officer in Oriental Insurance Company Limited was examined as RW.1 and the insurance policy of Hero Honda Splendour bearing registration No. KA-16/J-6214 was produced and it was marked as Ex.R1. 12. The Tribunal upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative holding petitioner/claimant has proved that he has sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 30.4.2007 near Kana of Basavalingappa, B-Durga, Holalkere Taluk by involvement of vehicle bearing registration No. KA-16/A-2868, answered issued No. 2 in the affirmative holding accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry and allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.40,300/- and directed the owner and the Insurance Co. to pay the said amount jointly and severally and answered issue No. 3. accordingly. 13. The claimant who specifically contended in para. 22 of the claim petition that respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident and reiterating so in his examination-in-chief has not substantiated the said contention either by producing the insurance policy pertaining to the offending vehicle or by adducing evidence in any other legal manner. Whereas, the insurance company has produced the policy relating to the policy number furnished by the claimant in the cause-title of the claim petition after the address of the Insurance company. On the other hand the claimant examined as PW.1 in his cross-examination, has admitted that he has not stated in the claim petition from which place insurance was obtained and from what period to what period it was in force. 14. The contention of the insurance company made in their statement of objections that the offending lorry was not insured with them was corroborated by the oral evidence of RW. 1 an Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company at the relevant point of time. 15. Further, the Insurance Company has produced the policy pertaining to the police number mentioned by the claimant in the cause title of the claim petition just below the name of the insurance company. Perusal of the said policy would show that it does not pertain to the offending lorry which caused the accident and it pertains to motor cycle, Hero Honda Splendour insured with the appellant. 16. Perusal of the said policy would show that it does not pertain to the offending lorry which caused the accident and it pertains to motor cycle, Hero Honda Splendour insured with the appellant. 16. It is relevant to observe that the driver of the offending lorry was not made as party to the claim petition. The owner of the lorry who was arrayed as respondent No. 1. remained absent and he was placed ex-parte. The claimant having contended that the offending lorry was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company has not substantiated the said contention by adducing evidence to that effect. The Tribunal holding that the Insurance Company has not produced the policy pertaining to the Chitradurga Branch, where the accident has taken place and it has not issued any notice either to the owner or to the driver of the offending vehicle has held that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove that the offending lorry was not insured with them and consequently directed the appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the offending lorry to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant jointly and severally. 17. It is settled law that a party to a judicial proceeding cannot be expected to prove the negative. In the instant case the claimant having contended that the offending lorry was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company was expected to prove his contention either by producing the insurance policy pertaining to the offending lorry or by adducing cogent evidence to that effect. The Insurance Company has produced the policy of the policy number mentioned by the claimant in the cause title of the claim petition, but it does not pertain to the offending lorry and it pertains to a two wheeler Hero Honda Splendour. The approach of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has not proved that the offending lorry was not insured with them is unknown to law of evidence. Probably for this reason, the Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant in the beginning of his submission submits that claimant is prepared to receive the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either from the owner or from the insurer of the offending lorry. The tenure of his submission shows that the offending lorry was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Probably for this reason, the Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant in the beginning of his submission submits that claimant is prepared to receive the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either from the owner or from the insurer of the offending lorry. The tenure of his submission shows that the offending lorry was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. In view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal on liability in fastening the same on the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally is not sustainable in law. 18. Now in view of holding that the finding of the Tribunal on liability in fastening it on the Insurance company is not sustainable in law and exonerating the Insurance Company from liability, the liability has to be fastened on the owner of the offending lorry, who has not preferred any appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal on negligence holding that claimant has sustained injuries in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. 19. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The Judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified insofar as liability is concerned. The Insurance Company is exonerated from liability and liability is fastened only against the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle is directed to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant with interest within two months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. Failing which it is open to the claimant to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle by re-coursing to law. 20. The amount deposited by the insurance company in the above appeal is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous First Appeal is Allowed.