JUDGMENT : This MFA CROB in MFA No. 8830/09 filed U/O 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2009 passed in MVC No. 292/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. MFA is filed by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability and MFA CROB is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, including its records. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Sarojamma in a road traffic accident occurred on 11-07-2007 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-02-EN/9791 by its rider, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal and cross objection are: (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurer of offending vehicle? (ii) Whether compensation awarded is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? 5. Sri A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Co. submits, appellant in their written statement filed before the Tribunal have clearly stated that the offending vehicle was not insured and insurance policy was not in force at the time of accident. In view of the said stand taken by the Insurance Co., burden shifts on the owner of the offending vehicle to prove that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident, as per the judgment of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. N.S. Devaraja and others reported in ILR 1997 Kar. 1061. Learned Counsel further submits, though it is not the duty of the Insurance Co. to prove that vehicle was not insured and policy was not in force at the time of accident, the Insurance Co. has made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to produce the insurance policy of the offending vehicle to show that policy was not in force at the time of accident and it was insured one hour 7 minutes after the accident. 6. has made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to produce the insurance policy of the offending vehicle to show that policy was not in force at the time of accident and it was insured one hour 7 minutes after the accident. 6. Regarding quantum, learned Counsel submits, compensation which has already been awarded is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal preferred by the Insurance Co. and dismissing the cross objection filed by the claimants. 7. Whereas Sri, Jagadeesh, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits, though insurance policy was issued one hour seven minutes after the accident as contended by the learned Counsel for the insurer, since premium was collected earlier to the accident, the policy deemed to have come into force from the time of collection of the premium and Insurance Co. will be liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimants. 8. Regarding quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants submits, that income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is very less, consequently compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency is on the lower side. He further submits that even compensation awarded under conventional heads is on the lower side. Therefore, he submits if the matter is remitted to the Tribunal, claimants will have an opportunity to lead additional evidence and establish that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company and policy was in force at the time of accident and the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to answer the claim and also lead evidence regarding avocation and income of the deceased. 9. In response to his request for remand of the matter, Sri. A.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits, the insurance company having made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC praying permission of the Court to produce the insurance policy by way of an additional affidavit, cannot have any objection for remanding the matter to the Tribunal for reconsidering the issue relating to liability as well as quantum. 10. Insurance company in para No. 2 of its statement of objection has specifically contended that the offending vehicle was not insured and insurance policy was not issued at the time of accident. 10. Insurance company in para No. 2 of its statement of objection has specifically contended that the offending vehicle was not insured and insurance policy was not issued at the time of accident. Whereas learned counsel for the claimants contends that though the policy was issued one hour seven minutes after the accident as contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company, but the insurance company having collected the premium earlier to the accident, the policy is deemed to have come into force with effect from the time of collection of premium. As both the parties are required to prove and establish their respective contentions by adducing evidence, matter needs to be remanded. At the same time, claimants can also adduce evidence regarding avocation and income of the deceased. Hence the following. ORDER Both the appeal as well as cross-objection stated disposed of. The judgment and awarded dated 13.08.2009 in MVC No. 292/2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Maddur, is set aside, in so far as its findings on liability and quantum are concerned and finding of the Tribunal on negligence holding that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-02/EN/9791 remains undisturbed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal, with a direction to reconsider its findings relating to liability and quantum, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after providing opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence. Since, the insurance company and claimants were represented before this Court through their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.12.2017 without expecting further notice from the Tribunal and on 12-12-2017 claimants shall take steps to issue notice to the owner of the offending vehicle. Application filed by the appellant/insurance company under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal along with the copy of insurance policy enclosed to the said application so as to enable the insurance company to lead additional evidence. Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/insurance company.