The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Deputy Manager, filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 08.02.2008 passed in MVOP No.1244 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The first claimant is the wife and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased Balu Naik. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 28U 9797 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. The case of the claimants is that on 02.11.2005 at about 6.00 PM the deceased was traveling in P/Van bearing No. AP 28U 9797 with cement covers. When the said vehicle reached the outskirts of Kondurg village, its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. However, while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 03.11.2005. The police, Kondurg police station, registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2005 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was a labourer and earning Rs.4,500/-per month and therefore the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents.

The second respondent-insurance company contested the matter and denied the material averments made by the claimants. The Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license and thus the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the first respondent-owner of the vehicle.

The Tribunal framed the following issues.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of P/Van Vehicle AP-28-U-9707?

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

3. To what relief?

On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and one N. Bajya Naik was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Since the said finding of the Tribunal is not challenged in this appeal, there is no need to discuss about the same.

The main contention of Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the insurance company, is that the vehicle involved in the accident is an auto-trolley and that the deceased was traveling as passenger and therefore he was gratuitous passenger. He further contended that admittedly the driver was not having effective driving license and therefore the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions reported in Vachala v. V.R. Kumar 2004-ALT-5-460, Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 5 SCC 136, Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. 2008 ACJ 2654, and National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala 2008 ACJ 2860.

On the other hand, Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also submitted that it is not sufficient to prove that the driver was not having valid driving license by the insurance company, but the insurance company should also prove that the driver was disqualified and incompetent to hold the driving license. It is also her submission that merely because the license is not renewed for a brief period it does not mean tha