This appeal is directed against order dated 4.1.1999 in O.P.No.5 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (in short, `the tribunal’) wherein the claim of respondents 1 and 2 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.62,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition.

2. The first respondent filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of his son, the deceased Madanna, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5.10.1995. Subsequently, the second respondent herein was impleaded as second claimant being mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased boy aged 8 years sustained grievous injuries on the head and face when jeep-bearing No.AP-9G-7962 dashed against him due to rash and negligent driving by its driver near Chakrala road of Pathikonda. It is further pleaded that the deceased was studying 4th class in Adarsha Vidya Petham, Yemmiganur by the date of the accident.

3. The third respondent herein (first respondent before the tribunal)/driver of the jeep remained ex parte.

4. The 4th respondent herein (Second respondent before the tribunal)/owner of the jeep and appellant herein (third respondent before the tribunal)/insurer of the vehicle filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation.

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of the jeep bearing No.AP-9G-7962 belonging to 2nd respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. PWs.1 to 3 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on the claimants’ side. RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondent.

7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the tribunal gave a finding on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.62,000/-. The tribunal further held that the appellant-insurer failed to establish that the driver of the jeep was not having valid driving licence. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition against owner and also insurer of the vehicle.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred the present appeal.

9. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent are heard. Records are perused.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver of the jeep was having only learner’s licence and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that there is no evidence on record to establish that the driver was having only learner’s licence and even otherwise, the appellant-insurer is liable to pay compensation, as the learner’s licence is also a valid licence.

12. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver is not seriously challenged. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW-2, one of the eyewitnesses coupled with the submissions in the F.I.R-Ex.A-3, charge sheet Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 M.V. Inspector’s report which show that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle go to show that the driver of the jeep was at fault. The finding of the tribunal in that regard does not call for any interference.

13. The other finding of the tribunal that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.62,000/- is also not seriously disputed. Even otherwise, having regard to the fact that the deceased was an young boy aged 8 years as can be seen from Post Mortem Certificate Ex.A-6 the amount of compensation awarded in a sum of