JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 12 th March 2015 passed in MVC No.551/2009 (Old No.991/2009) by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, at Pandavapura (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. MFA No.6519/2015 is filed by Insurer questioning its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of false involvement of the vehicle and MFA.Crob No.127/2015 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the claimant that, on 26.02.2009 the claimant Channegowda was traveling as a passenger in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-11-8512 from Pandavapura towards Pattasomanahalli. The driver of the autorickshaw was driving it in a rash and negligent manner, due to the same the vehicle toppled. The claimant Channegowda sustained grievous injuries, and he took treatment. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered disability. With these reasons, the claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied contentions of the claimant. He further contended that said vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2. If claim petition is allowed then respondent No.2 would be liable to pay the compensation. 6. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claimant. It is contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the case to claim compensation. It is also contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The claimant to prove his case examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and marked 175 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-175. Respondent No.2-Insurer examined four witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4. (The learned trial Court Judge in the impugned award has not mentioned names of the witnesses and documents produced by the respondent No.2. Even in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, it is only mentioned that RWs.1 and 2 were examined, though respondent No.2 examined in all, four witnesses). 8. It appears that earlier respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal and remained ex-parte. Even in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, it is only mentioned that RWs.1 and 2 were examined, though respondent No.2 examined in all, four witnesses). 8. It appears that earlier respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal and remained ex-parte. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter awarded compensation by its judgment and award dated 21 st July 2011. The respondent No.2 filed Misc. Petition No.1/2013 before the very same Court under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC praying to set aside the ex-parte award passed against it. The said petition was allowed. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.551/2009 was set aside and MVC No.551/2009 was restored. It also appears that, in the interregnum, the claimant filed an appeal in MFA No.13661/2012 before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. After the order passed in Crl.Misc.P.No.1/2013, the appellant filed memo before this Court to withdraw the appeal in MFA No.13661/2012 and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 12 th March 2015. It held that the accident had occurred due to involvement of the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-11- 8512 and awarded following amount of compensation. Particulars Amount Pain Shock and agony Rs. 55,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,80,901/- Food, diet, Nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses Rs. 20,000/- Future expenses Rs. 20,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 25,000/- Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs. 5,40,000/- Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs. 9,70,901/- 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed this appeal and claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. During the pendency of the appeal, the said Channegowda died and his legal heirs are brought on record. 12. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer. He vehemently contended that there is a delay in filing the complaint. Accident said to be occurred on 26.02.2009, but complaint was given on 06.03.2009. Vehicle number was not stated in the medical records and subsequently it was inserted and the vehicle was falsely implicated. These facts are proved by the insurer. 13. He further submitted that the Insurer examined in all four witnesses. Accident said to be occurred on 26.02.2009, but complaint was given on 06.03.2009. Vehicle number was not stated in the medical records and subsequently it was inserted and the vehicle was falsely implicated. These facts are proved by the insurer. 13. He further submitted that the Insurer examined in all four witnesses. RW-1 is the Doctor who produced Ex.R-1 and in his evidence he has stated that he has not written the vehicle number in Ex.R-1 and that it was probably written by RW-2. However, Rw.2 who was examined, also denied having written the vehicle number in Ex.R-1. The Insurer examined its officer as RW-3, who has stated that the said vehicle number was subsequently inserted just to claim the compensation. RW-4, another officer of the Insurance Company, also stated that said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of RW.1 to RW.4 to disbelieve their evidence. The insertion of the vehicle number in the medical records remains a mystery. These facts clearly indicate that the said vehicle was falsely implicated. Though, the Tribunal noted these facts in the impugned judgment but ignored the same with a reason that strict rule of evidence is not applicable to the Tribunal. The said findings are erroneous. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. 14. I have perused the materials available on record anxiously. The points that arise for consideration are as follows: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.KA 11/8512 by its driver ? ii) Whether the Tribunal awarded just and fair amount of compensation? Point No.1: 15. The claimant was examined as PW-1. In his evidence, he has stated that on 26.02.2009 he met with an accident involving an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-11-8512. He along with one Balakrishna and wife of Balakrishna by name Arathi were traveling in the said vehicle at the time of accident. Due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, by its driver, the vehicle toppled to the right side and he sustained injuries. He initially received treatment at Government Hospital at Pandavapura, and for higher treatment he was taken to J.S.S Hospital, Mysuru as well as Appollo B.G.S. Hospital, Mysuru. He took treatment as inpatient from 14.03.2009 to 27.03.2009. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident he was bedridden. He initially received treatment at Government Hospital at Pandavapura, and for higher treatment he was taken to J.S.S Hospital, Mysuru as well as Appollo B.G.S. Hospital, Mysuru. He took treatment as inpatient from 14.03.2009 to 27.03.2009. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident he was bedridden. In his cross-examination he has stated that when he was taken to hospital he was unconscious and his wife and children were busy in treating him. Therefore, he did not file a complaint at that time. He denied the suggestion that the complaint was lodged after deliberation, involving the said vehicle to strengthen the claim. 16. A complaint was lodged by one Shivannegowda on 06.03.2009 at 6.00 p.m. nearly 8 days after the incident. The complaint mentions the vehicle number and describes the injuries sustained by the claimant as well as other two inmates of the vehicle. He further stated that he did not file a complaint immediately as he was under shock. The said vehicle was seized by the Police on 11.03.2009. The mahazar produced at Ex.P-3, indicates that "the front wind screen glass was broken the top of the said autorickshaw was dented, and indicator lights were broken." The MVI report produced at Ex.P-4 also indicates damage caused to the said autorickshaw. A copy of the charge sheet is produced as Ex.P-6, indicating that the said accident occurred due to the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-8512. 17. To disprove the said evidence respondent-Insurer examined Dr.Rajanna (RW.1). He produced Ex.R-1. He has stated that the vehicle number was not mentioned in Ex.R-1 by him and he stated that one Smt.Susheela Devi, another Medical Officer had mentioned the vehicle number on Ex.R-1. He also stated that according to his knowledge, no application was filed to correct or to include vehicle number in Ex.R-1. In his cross-examination, he stated that on that day along with Channegowda, two other persons might have been admitted in the hospital. Relevant pages are marked as Ex.R-2. The Respondent-Insurer also examined RW-2, Dr. Susheela Devi. In her evidence, she stated that she has not altered MLC register or added the vehicle number in the said register. 18. One A.M.Sandesh, the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company was examined as RW-3. He has stated that he tried to contact the owner and driver of the vehicle but they were not available. Susheela Devi. In her evidence, she stated that she has not altered MLC register or added the vehicle number in the said register. 18. One A.M.Sandesh, the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company was examined as RW-3. He has stated that he tried to contact the owner and driver of the vehicle but they were not available. He collected the MLC register and found that vehicle number was initially not mentioned in the said register; but was later added. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not recorded the statement of any of the witnesses, but he enquired the doctors, who were on duty when the claimant was admitted. 19. RW-4 is the Legal Advisor of Insurer. In his evidence also he stated that in MLC register initially vehicle number was not mentioned and later on, it was added. In his cross- examination, he denied having lodged any complaint against the Medical Officer for correcting or inserting vehicle numbers subsequently. He further denied that just to avoid payment of compensation he was deposing falsely before the Court. 20. On perusal of Ex.R-1 with bare eyes one can make out that it was subsequently inserted. RW.1 and 2 stated they have not written it. Handwriting of the vehicle number is different. Ex.R-2 pertains to admission of another injured person, which is not relevant for this case. 21. The contention of the Insurer is mainly based on the delay in lodging the complaint as well as mentioning of the vehicle number subsequently in the MLC register. 22. Complainant is not claimant, in Ex.P-2, he has mentioned reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. It is not in dispute that claimant was admitted in the hospital on the date of accident. He was unconscious while admitting to hospital. Other two passengers of auto also suffered injuries. Ex.R-1 reveals that due to auto upside down, claimant was admitted. Normally hospital would send the intimation to the concerned Police. In this case either hospital had not sent intimation or Police did not take cognizance of the same. In the history of Ex.R-1 it is not stated that in some other incident he sustained injury. Complainant is eye witness to the incident. Owner or driver of offending vehicle have not challenged the charge sheet. Hence, even if vehicle number was inserted subsequently in Ex.R-1, it cannot be inferred that vehicle was falsely implicated. In the history of Ex.R-1 it is not stated that in some other incident he sustained injury. Complainant is eye witness to the incident. Owner or driver of offending vehicle have not challenged the charge sheet. Hence, even if vehicle number was inserted subsequently in Ex.R-1, it cannot be inferred that vehicle was falsely implicated. 23. The claimant, in his evidence stated that the vehicle was involved in the accident. The said vehicle was seized approximately 8 days after the accident under a mahazar, which indicates that the vehicle had sustained damages as noted above. It is true that there is in consistency regarding the date, time noted in the seizure mahazar. Ex.P-4 the Inspection report, mentions similar damage as noted in the mahazar. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that seizure was at 12.30 p.m. and vehicle was inspected at 1.00 p.m., which is improbable. It is difficult to believe that within span of 30 minutes seizure of vehicles and its inspection was completed. That cannot be reason to disbelieve the case of claimant. Under such circumstances, and on going through the materials on record, the contention of the appellant-Insurer is not acceptable to hold that said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. 24. It is true that, the Tribunal did not discuss in detail about said contention of insurer by appreciating the materials available on record. However, by merely assigning cryptic reasons, that repeated said contention the strict rules of evidence are not made applicable to the motor vehicle compensation cases. The Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to involvement of the said vehicle. However, this Court upon re-appreciating the material concurs with the finding of the Tribunal. Point No.2: The Tribunal has discussed in detail about the injury sustained by the claimant, treatment taken by him, medical expenses and other materials available on record and awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. The said finding does not call for interference by this Court. 25. The grounds urged in the cross-appeal are not justifiable for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere with the award of compensation by the Tribunal. 26. The said finding does not call for interference by this Court. 25. The grounds urged in the cross-appeal are not justifiable for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere with the award of compensation by the Tribunal. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contends that the Tribunal has awarded interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 % p.a. which requires to be reduced to 6%, which is normally followed by the Tribunals in most of the cases. 27. The Tribunal while awarding the interest discussed in detail in this regard at paragraph 41 of the impugned judgment and relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and exercising its discretion awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., which cannot be considered as illegal or arbitrary. Therefore, said contention of the appellant-Insurer is not accepted. 28. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.2 in the negative and pass the following:- ORDER : i) MFA No.6519/2015 and MFA.Crob No.127/2015 are dismissed; ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 12 th March 2015, passed in MVC No.551/09 (Old No.991/09) by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C at Pandavapura, stands confirmed. iii) Registry is directed to transmit the records along with copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith. iv) The amount deposited by the appellant-Insurer if any, before this Court, be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal.