JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 20.2.2014 passed in MVC.No.84/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna. The Insurance Company has filed the appeal in MFA.3215/2014 on the ground of negligence as well as quantum. The claimant has filed the appeal in MFA.6963/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 19.4.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. himself and the claimant in MVC.No.85/2011 were standing on the left side of B.M. Road, Channarayapatna. At that time, the rider of Bajaj Pulser Bike bearing Regn.No.KA-02-EH- 1845 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them, as a result of which, both of them sustained grievous injuries. The claimant in the present appeal namely D.K. Srikantaiah specifically averred that in the said accident, he suffered fracture of mandible and other grievous injuries. Hence, claimed compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. The first respondent-owner though served remained absent and hence, he was placed exparte. The Insurance company arrayed as second respondent on service of summons appeared and filed written statement stoutly denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. They specifically averred that the offending bike was not at all involved in the accident and there is delay in lodging the complaint. However, the validity of the insurance cover was not disputed. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Claimant proves that on 19.04.2010 at about 7 p.m. when he and another were standing on the left side of the B.M. Road, near Nuggehalli cross, Channarayapatna at that time the rider of a Bajaj Pulser Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02- EH-1845 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the him and as a result of it the he has sustained bodily injuries? 2. Whether the Claimant is entitle to the compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom? 3. What Order or Award? The claimant in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1, examined and the doctor as PW.3 and produced documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P22. The Insurance Company examined its official as R.W.1 and produced two documents as per EXs.R1 and R2. If yes, what amount and from whom? 3. What Order or Award? The claimant in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1, examined and the doctor as PW.3 and produced documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P22. The Insurance Company examined its official as R.W.1 and produced two documents as per EXs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal having appreciated the material on record has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending bike and the claimant suffered injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal while assessing the disability has come to the conclusion that there is no loss of earning capacity. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has proceeded to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards disability. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,75,000/- towards medical, conveyance and Nourishment expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Thus, in all the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the same, both the claimant and the Insurance Company have preferred these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would vehemently argue and contend that the accident took place on 19.4.2010 and the complaint was lodged on 21.4.2010 at about 2.30 p.m. Further, he would seriously dispute the spot mahazar. To buttress his arguments, he would rely on Ex.R2, which is the M.L.C. register. The learned counsel would further take us to the cause title and contend that the present appellant9 claimant and the first respondent are full brothers. The vehicle set up in the accident is admittedly owned by the family of the claimant and by falsely implicating the vehicle, the present claim petition is filed and that this material aspect has not been dealt with by the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would vehemently argue and contend that the claimant and the first respondent are not at all related. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would vehemently argue and contend that the claimant and the first respondent are not at all related. The insurance company is trying to take advantage of the fact that the names of father of the claimant and the first respondent are one and the same and would contend that they are full brothers. It is for the first time, the said contention is raised before this Court and that there is absolutely no evidence placed on record in this regard. On these set of grounds, he would submit to this Court that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. Insofar as quantum is concerned, the learned counsel to claimants would contend that the evidence adduced by the claimant is not properly assessed by the Tribunal and has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of earnings. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the Insurance Company. We have examined the pleadings of the parties. 7. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 does not warrant any interference by this Court. The copy of the charge sheet at Ex.P1, the first information report at Ex.P3 coupled with the spot mahazar at Ex.P5 and oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who have suffered injuries in the accident would clearly establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending bike. Further, the delay of one day would not create any doubt in regard to the occurrence of the accident. The evidence on record would clearly indicate that the claimant was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital. By solely relying on the contents of Ex.P22, which is the discharge card, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be reversed. The contents of Ex.P22 are not significant to displace the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. The Tribunal by taking holistic view of police records coupled with the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are both injured in the accident, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of the bike. The Tribunal by taking holistic view of police records coupled with the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are both injured in the accident, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of the bike. We do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1. It is quite strange that the Insurance Company for the first time is trying to make out a case that the present claimant and the first respondent are full brothers. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that they are full brothers. On perusal of the cause title of the claim petition, it is forthcoming that the names of the father of the present claimant and the first respondent are one and the same. However, the addresses are totally different. If the Insurance Company really had serious objection, they ought to have raised it before the Tribunal itself. In the absence of pleadings in the written statement, this contention at this belated stage cannot be entertained. Accordingly, all contentions raised by the Insurance Company are negatived. Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded fair and just compensation having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The claimant to corroborate his contention relied on the evidence of P.W.3 who has assessed the disability at 17.5% to the whole body on the ground that the claimant has lost two teeth and has got 10% disability, since he cannot chew hard food. The Tribunal has meticulously examined the medical evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that there is no loss of earning capacity on account of disability suffered by the appellant. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards disability. In this background, we are of the view that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under the head of future loss of earning since the medical evidence on record does not indicate that injuries and disabilities suffered by the appellant would hamper his earning capacity. In that view of the matter, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal insofar as disability is concerned. In that view of the matter, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal insofar as disability is concerned. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that the compensation awarded under various heads is fair and just and there is no scope for further enhancement. The Tribunal in all awarded a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- which is reasonable and fair compensation. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no scope for any further enhancement. 8. For the reasons stated supra, both the appeals filed by the claimant as well as the Insurance Company stand dismissed.