( 1 ) UNSUCCESSFUL respondents 1 and 2 are the appellants. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2nd respondent herein is the insurer. The 1st respondent filed the claim petition claiming compensation of rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of his wife in a motor accident alleged to have been caused by the 1st appellant by rash and negligent driving of the scooter belonging to the 2nd appellant. The case of the 1st respondent herein inter alia in the claim petition was that on 10-10-1991 at about 9. 30 p. m. he and his deceased wife and their daughter were returning home by foot by walking on the extreme left of the road after having witnessed a picture and that when they reached near the Police Station, rampachodavaram, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st appellant the scooter bearing No. AP 5a 8470 hit the deceased from behind as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries and later died in the hospital and that on account of the death of the deceased he suffered mentally and financially. It was his further case that the deceased used to earn rs. 1,000/- p. m. and that he being sick and his daughter being minor were completely dependent upon the deceased who was maintaining them. The 1st appellant filed counter resisting the claim, which was adopted by the 2nd appellant by filing a memo. He denied the allegation of driving the scooter at the relevant time in rash and negligent manner and asserted that he was not responsible for the accident. The 2nd respondent herein-insurer resisted the claim on the premise that since the 1st appellant was not having a valid licence the insurer was not liable, for the breach of the condition in the policy. The tribunal framed three issues at the time of settlement of issues. (1) Whether Kalla Seetha died in an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle AP 5a 8470? (2) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so what is the amount? (3) To what relief?

( 2 ) AT the time of trial four witnesses were examined including the claimant - P. W. I and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were got marked on the side of the claimant. The 1st appellant examined himself as R. W. 2. The 2nd respondent herein - insurer examined one witness and got Exs. B-1 to B-3 marked. Appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary on the record, the learned tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing no. AP 5a 8470. On issue No. 2 the tribunal held that since R. W. 2 had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, the 2nd respondent-insurer was not liable and, therefore, on issue No. 3 the tribunal fixed the liability to pay the compensation on the 1st and 2nd appellants - the driver and the owner of the scooter respectively. Having been aggrieved by the said award the 1st and 2nd appellants, as aforesaid, have preferred the present appeal.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sri M. Lakshmana Sarma contends that there has been no proof on record to fix the liability on the 1st appellant as driver of the vehicle and on the 2nd appellant as the owner of the vehicle that involved in the accident. Learned counsel further contends that the very basis upon which the compensation was assessed is not correct.

( 4 ) IN view of the serious dispute as regards the identity of the vehicle that did in fact involve in the accident and the driver thereof at the appropriate time, the question that arises for determination in the first instance is whether the 1st appellant was the driver of the scooter at the appropriate time when the accident in this case was said to have occurred.

( 5 ) OBVIOUSLY, the vehicle i. e. , a Bajaj chetak scooter bearing No. AP 5a 8470 that is said to have been involved in the accident belongs to the 2nd appellant. The vehicle in this case was not seized by the police on the spot. Four days after the accident it was seized. The 2nd appell