Aggrieved by the award dated 02.02.2007 passed in OP No.2656 of 2003 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, at Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) to the extent of holding that the second respondent–Insurance Company is entitled to avoid its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The first claimant is the father, second claimant is the mother and the third claimant is the sister of the deceased. Their case is that on 15.08.2003 at about 12.30 hours the deceased Alok Kumar Agarwal was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No. AP 12A 851 from Katedan to his house at Siddiambar Bazar and when he reached Miralam tank road, the offending lorry bearing No.ATT 3035 being driven by its driver-cum-owner Mohd. Kaleemulla came from opposite direction and dashed against the scooter and ran over the deceased. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. The police, Bahadurpura, registered a case in Crime No. 154 of 2003, under Section 304-A IPC. It is also their case that the deceased was aged about 19 years, unmarried and working as a Purchase Manager in Pooja Priya Plasto Pack (P) Limited, Gaganpahad, Rajendranagar and earning Rs.8500/- per month as on the date of his death. Contending that they have lost their bread winner and love and affection of the deceased for untimely death of the deceased the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- against the first respondent-owner of the vehicle and the second respondent-the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured contending that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to them.

4. The first respondent filed a counter and denied the material averments made by the claimants with regard to age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is also denied that he had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is his case that he was having valid driving licence on the date of accident issued by the RTA and that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company and therefore the insurance company is liable to indemnify him. He has also mentioned that he filed Xerox copy of the driving license along with counter.

5. The second respondent filed a counter and denied the material averments made by the claimants. In their additional counter the second respondent has taken a specific plea that the driver of the vehicle was issued a driving license to drive non-transport vehicle valid for the period from 21.06.1992 to 11.02.1993 and whereas the accident occurred on 15.08.2003 and therefore on the date of accident the driver was not having valid driving license and consequently the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

6. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of PW.2, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. This issue is not in dispute in this appeal. On issue No.2, the Tribunal, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ 1, came to the conclusion that though the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license on the date of accident, but, however, the first respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and accordingly directed the first respondent to pay compensation to the claimants. On the quantum of compensatio