GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the order, dated 04-12-2009 in O.P.No.435 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court, Nellore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal, are as follows:

The claimants are the wife, daughter and mother of late Seetharami Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) respectively, who died in a motor accident. On 18-12-2004 at about 16-30 hours, while the deceased, aged about 26 years, was working at the Campus of NTPC Land Filling Zone-I, Dhibar Village, Patna District, Bihar State, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.JH-10-E-3016 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. Therefore, the claimants filed the O.P. stating that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month towards salary and due to his sudden demise, they are deprived of his love and affection and support. They claimed compensation contending that since the driver of offending vehicle caused the accident, and as he drove the vehicle at the time of accident in the regular course of his employment under the first respondent-owner of the vehicle, and as the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to them.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters denying the material allegations in the petition and disputed the manner of accident, age and income of the deceased and his relationship with the claimants. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, and as the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent-insurance company and the insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident and as the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and if any compensation is awarded, the second respondent-insurance company is liable to pay the same.

5. The second respondent-insurance company disputed the validity of the license possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and also disputed the coverage of the insurance policy.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tipper bearing No.JH-10-E-3016 by its driver and whether it resulted in the death of Dumpa Seetharami Reddy (deceased)?

2. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle is having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate and against which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, claimants 1 and 3 were examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and examined PWs.3 and 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, on issue No.1, the Tribunal observed that though respondents 1 and 2 filed their written statements disputing the manner of accident, they did not adduce any evidence on their behalf and held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective license to drive the vehicle. On issue No.3, the Tribunal took the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-, which co