JUDGMENT : The claimants have preferred these two appeals against the common judgment and award dated 17.09.2011 in MVC Nos.258 and 259 of 2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna, by which, the liability is saddled on the first respondent owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-13/S-9257. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award and common question would arise for consideration, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The claimants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.12.2008. On 24.12.2008, at about 8.30 a.m., when the petitioners were near Bhagath Singh Auto Stand at KSRTC bus stand, Channarayapatna, the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13/S-9257 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to them. Due to which, they sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that they have undergone treatment at Government Hospital at Channarayapatna as inpatient for about 20 days. 4. On service of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed separate written statements. The first respondent-owner in his written statement has stated that the rider of the motor cycle was not responsible for the accident. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed written statement denying the petition averments. It is further contended that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. 5. The Tribunal, on considering the material both oral and documentary on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.24,500/- in favour of the appellant in MFA No.2554/2012 and Rs.96,700/- in favour of the appellant in MFA No.2561/2012 and saddled the entire liability on respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle. The claimants being aggrieved by saddling liability on respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle are before this Court in these two appeals. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the appeal papers. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred on 24.12.2008, when both the claimants were near KSRTC bus stand, Channarayapatna, rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/S-9257 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to them. It is stated that the FIR was filed against the unknown persons with vehicle No.KA-13/S-9257. Perused the appeal papers. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred on 24.12.2008, when both the claimants were near KSRTC bus stand, Channarayapatna, rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/S-9257 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to them. It is stated that the FIR was filed against the unknown persons with vehicle No.KA-13/S-9257. But the charge sheet was filed against one Shankar, son of Rangegowda who had no driving license. But the contention of the claimants is that one Nanjegowda son of Rangegowda was riding the motorcycle and he has caused the accident. On this issue, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants have examined P.W.3Shankar son of Rangegowda and he states that he is called by two names i.e. Shankar as well as Nanjegowda. To support his contention, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have filed I.A.No.1/2014 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC to say that Shankar was also called as Nanjegowda. The appellants have produced Court notices issued in the name of Nanjegowda @ Shankar son of Rangegowda. Learned counsel states that in the driving license, it is shown as Nanje Gowda. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company submits that as the rider of the motorcycle Shankar had no driving license, Nanjegowda was implicated in the case to claim insurance. The charge sheet is filed against Shankar. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the claimants and saddled the liability on the owner of the offending motorcycle. Further, the learned counsel for the insurer contends that the documents produced along with I.A. for production of additional documents and the same shall have to be proved by the claimants to the effect that, as claimed, Nanjegowda is also known as Shankar. 9. The accident had taken place on 24.12.2008 involving vehicle No.KA-13/S-9257. FIR is filed against the unknown person, but against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-13/S-9257. The only question that is to be decided is as to who was the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident. The claimants state that Nanjegowda @ Shankar was riding the motorcycle who had driving license. But the charge sheet is filed against Shankar. It is noted that he had no driving license. The only question that is to be decided is as to who was the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident. The claimants state that Nanjegowda @ Shankar was riding the motorcycle who had driving license. But the charge sheet is filed against Shankar. It is noted that he had no driving license. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.3 Shankar @ Nanjegowda who is examined before the Tribunal has stated that he is called by two names i.e. Shankar @ Nanjegowda, is not sufficient. The claimants ought to have produced the documents to indicate that he is called by two names. However, the claimants have filed I.A.No.1/2014 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC producing police notice and Court notice to Shankar @ Nanjegowda in the accident involving another vehicle. The same needs recording of evidence and the claimants have to prove that Shankar is also called as Nanjegowda. The respondent/insurer is also to be provided an opportunity to crossexamine these documents. Unless the contention of the appellants/claimants that Shankar is also called as Nanjegowda, the liability cannot be saddled on the Insurance Company as such, I am of the view that the matter requires to be remanded. 10. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2014 is allowed, consequently the appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 17.09.2011 in MVC Nos.258 and 259 of 2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to lead evidence on the documents produced along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The Respondents are also at liberty to lead their evidence, if any, and the claimants are also entitled to lead additional evidence. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not disturbed. Only to the limited extent of proving that Shankar is also called as Nanjegowda, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claimants’ petitions as expeditiously as possible. Smt.Manjula R Tejaswi appeared for respondent No.1 in MFA No.2554/2012 and she is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks from today.