C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dt. 25-2-2002 passed in MVOP No.729/1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Originally, the sole claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 29-9-1996. According to the claimant, on that day at about 6 PM when he was sitting on the left side of the road selling fruits, a lorry driven by the first respondent-driver in OP in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed against the claimant-injured. Due to which, he fell down and received multiple injuries. Immediately he was shifted to U.G. Hospital. In respect of the said accident, a case in Cr.No.239/1996 was registered by the police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. According to him, respondents 1 to 3 in OP who are driver, owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. The OP against R-1 was dismissed and R-2 remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent i.e., the insurance company filed their counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. According to them, the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licnece on the date of accident and no information with regard to the said accident was passed on to the insurance company. According to them, the claimant is put to strict proof that there is valid insurance policy and that there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

5. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2. He got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and X-1 to X-4. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

6. The tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, awarded compensation of Rs.44,000/-to be paid by the respondents 2 and 3 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

7. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Pending appeal, the respondent No.1 who is sole claimant in OP died and his LRs were brought on record as respondents 4 and 5 vide order dt.11-3-2004 in CMP No.3915/2004.

9. P.W.1 deposed that he sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Except suggesting that the accident was not due to any rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that it was due to negligence of the claimant, no contra evidence has been let in to dis-prove or discredit the testimony of P.W.1. The first information report was registered against the driver of the vehicle and the police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The said documents were produced on record as Exs.A-1 and A-3 respectively. No steps have been taken by the respondents to rebut the evidence of P.W.1, by examining the driver of the vehicle. In the absence of any evidence contra to P.W.1, the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is hereby confirmed.

10. Coming to the quantum of amount to be awarded, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he sustained fracture to his leg and he was treated in U.G. Hospital, Vijayawada as inpatient for one week. According to him, he remained in the house for six months and could not able to attend to his duties. P.W.2 Doctor who treated P.W.1 deposed that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right knee and swelling on thigh. According to Ex.A-2-report of Radiologist, the Radiologist opined that X-ray revealed fracture of both bones of right leg. The tribunal after considering the age, earnings and extent of disability awarded a sum of RS.27,060/-towards total amount of loss of income and permane