JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. MFA No.6661/2015 and MFA No.6662/2015 are filed by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside the common Judgment and Award dated 07.05.2015 passed in MVC Nos.5181/2012 and 5182/2012 on the file of the XII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. Sri.P.N.Munigowda is the petitioner/claimant in MVC No.5181/2012, P.M. Narayanaswamy is the petitioner/claimant in MVC No.5182/2012, Sri.Akbar is the respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 is Bharathi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., in both the cases. 3. Though the matters are coming up for admission, with the consent of counsels for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 4. On 19-05-2012 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner in MVC 5181/2012 and the petitioner in MVC 5182/2012 being the rider and pillion rider, were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-K-1418 slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations on the extreme left side on Sidlaghatta to Chintamani road, when they reached near Anjaneyaswamy Temple, at that time the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-03-5184 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said impact, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to Government hospital, Sidlagatta wherein they took the first aid treatment, later they were shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru and M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, wherein they took the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount. 5. Prior to the accident, claimants were hale and healthy working as agriculturists by getting monthly income of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, due to the accidental injuries they could not do the work as before. The accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driver. Sidlaghatta Town Police have registered the case against the driver of the autorickshaw in their police station crime No.35/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed exparte. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 being the insurer has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement in which it is alleged that the claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable either in law or on facts and Respondent No.2 has not at all issued any policy in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of the first respondent and the petitioners have to e put to strict proof of the same about the issuance of the policy as alleged in the claim petition and R.W.1 has denied the averments made in column No.1 to 4 of the claim petition and he has alleged that either the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of MV Act in furnishing better particulars and he has denied the averments made in column No.11 to 14, 18 and 21 of the claim petition and the age, avocation and income of the petitioners and further alleged that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and there is a delay in lodging the complaint, that itself is clear that the petitioners colluding with the police and the owner of the offending vehicle have falsely implicated the offending vehicle in order to get the compensation and the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-K-1418, as he had ridden the same in a zig zag manner and dashed against the offending vehicle. So, he has contributed for the cause of accident and the claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, since the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle. So, he has contributed for the cause of accident and the claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, since the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle. Further, he has not at all issued a policy in favour of the first respondent at any point of time in any capacity, the policy number as shown in the cause title of the petition is not correct and the particulars pertaining to the policy is absolutely incorrect, as the company has not issued any kind of policy in favour of the first respondent in respect of the offending vehicle and there was no relationship in between them as insurer and insured. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in both claim petitions: MVC No.5181/2012 1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in column No.11, in a road traffic accident, on 19.5.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. near Anjanesyaswamy temple, on Sidlaghatta to Chinatamani Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-03-5184? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom? 3. What Order or Award? MVC No.5182/2012 1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as column No.11, in a 19.5.2012 mentioned in road traffic accident, on about at Anjaneyaswamy temple, 4.30 p.m. on Sidlaghatta near to Chintamani road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-03-5184? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 3. What Order or Award? 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the memo dated 28.08.2012 and prays for clubbing MVC No.5182/2012 with MVC No.5181/2012 for recording of common evidence and for disposal. Accordingly the said memo was accepted and MVC No.5182/2012 was clubbed with MVC No.5181/2012 for the purpose of recording of common evidence and for disposal of the cases as these claim petitions are arising out of the same accident. 9. Accordingly the said memo was accepted and MVC No.5182/2012 was clubbed with MVC No.5181/2012 for the purpose of recording of common evidence and for disposal of the cases as these claim petitions are arising out of the same accident. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo before the Tribunal for clubbing of the cases in MVC No.5182/2012 and MVC No.5182/2012 for the purpose of recording of common evidence and for disposal as both the claim petitions were arising out of the same accident. Accordingly, both the cases were clubbed and common evidence was recorded and common order was passed. 10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner in MVC No.5181/2012 has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and the petitioner in MVC No.5182/2012 has examined himself as PW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.P17 to Ex.P20. The petitioner in MVC No.5181/2012 has examined one witness on his behalf as PW.3 and got marked documents as Ex.P21 to Ex.P23 and the petitioner in MVC No.5182/2012 has examined one witness on his behalf as PW.4 and got marked documents as Ex.P24 to Ex.P26. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has examined its Manager (Legal) as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,579/- in MVC No.5181/2012 and a sum of Rs.68,382/- in MVC No.5182/2012, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., allowing both the claim petitions in part. 12. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record. 13. It is observed that R.W.10-Manager of M/s.Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company Limited has denied the averments made in the claim petition and he has alleged that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of MV Act in furnishing better particulars and he has denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding the age, avocation and income of the petitioners and further alleged that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. He has further averred that the Insurance Company has not issued any policy for vehicle No.KA-03/5184 for the period claimed by Respondent No.1. He has further averred that the Insurance Company has not issued any policy for vehicle No.KA-03/5184 for the period claimed by Respondent No.1. Further, he has stated that Investigating Officer will be appointed by the Insurance Company after service of notice, but there is no document to show that Respondent No.1 was approached by the Investigating Officer. Policy number shown in the case will be verified with the details available in the Computer and evidence will be adduced based on that. In this case, the petitioner has shown Policy number which has ‘9’ digits and the Insurance Company name is also different. Generally, the Policy number will have ‘8’ digits. The Xerox copy of the Policy produced is not the copy of policy issued by the Insurance Company. Further, it has to be noticed that the Tribunal has not cross-examined the said witness R.W.1. 14. It is observed that in the objection statement filed by the Respondent No.2-Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company, it is stated that the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company denies the existence of the policy in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-03/5184 and called upon Respondent No.1 to produce strict proof of the same by producing the original Policy before the Tribunal. The burden of proof is on the petitioner/claimant and Respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle to prove the existence of the policy. The Insurance Company has also denied the occurrence of the accident on 19.05.2012 and involvement of the vehicles mentioned as the Respondent No.1 did not intimate the fact of the accident immediately to the Insurance Company. Hence, there is clear violation of Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further noticed that the Respondent No.1 has not produced any other documents like R.C, driving licence etc., for verification. Further, it is observed that the driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-03/5184 has to produce strict proof of the driving licence of said vehicle. 15. It is further observed that in the additional objection statement filed by Respondent No.2, it is submitted that the particulars of the policy mentioned in the cause title of the petition, i.e. FCV/102027599/41/05/B24111 and the validity from 05.03.2012 to 04.04.2013 is no where concerned with Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company Limited. Further the particulars furnished and the validity period mentioned are not at all connecting to the vehicle of the respondent No.1 and are incorrect. Further the particulars furnished and the validity period mentioned are not at all connecting to the vehicle of the respondent No.1 and are incorrect. Therefore, it is stated that there is no relationship of insurer and insured between the Respondent No.1 and the Insurance Company and the petition is liable to be dismissed as against Respondent No.1. 16. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documents and evidence on record, particularly, the statement made by the Insurance Company in the written statement and the additional written statement filed by Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 17. Further, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence of RW.1 regarding mentioning of 09 digits as Policy number, whereas anywhere in the country, the Policy number should be 08 digits only. Thus, it is contended that the Policy produced by Respondent No.1-owner is a fake policy. Further, Respondent No.1 has produced the Xerox copy of the policy which contains 09 digits before this Court and it was not produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the cases have to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. 18. In the result, the following order is passed: (a) Both Miscellaneous First Appeals are allowed. (b) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 07.05.2015 passed in MVC Nos.5181/2012 and 5182/2012 on the file of the XII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, is set aside and both the cases are remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. (c) The Tribunal shall give opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and produce documents and considering the documents, specifically, Insurance Policy, shall dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible i.e., within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. (d) Registry is directed to return the Records to the Tribunal, forthwith. (e) Amount in deposit along with accrued interest if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.