The insurer questions its liability to satisfy the claim of a third party on the ground that the offending lorry was not insured with the insurer and that the insurer, consequently, is not liable to the claim. The insurer also filed MA CMA MP No.2728 of 2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to receive additional evidence. The petition for additional evidence as well as the appeal are resisted by the claimant.

2. Compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- was sought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the mother of the deceased-B. Santosh Kumar alleging that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident when Tata Indigo Car bearing Registration No.AP9Y 342 hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling leading to the death of the deceased. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car owned by the second respondent herein. The Tribunal also held that the appellant was the insurer of the offending lorry. Compensation was awarded at Rs.3,14,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Assailing• the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal. It may be noticed that no cross appeal was preferred by the claimant. It would appear that the claimant was fairly satisfied with the amount of the compensation received by her.

3. The deceased was 25 years old at the time of his death. He was a Sales Consultant in M/s. Kun United Hyundai, Hyderabad. He was drawing salary at Rs.7,250/-, vide Ex.A6-salary certificate. On 11.9.2008 at about 9.30 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding from Thukkuguda to Hyderabad on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 10AN 5532, the offending Tata Indigo Car of the second respondent bearing Registration No. AP 9Y 342 dashed the motorcycle from the opposite direction near HUDA School, Shaheen Nagar, Hyderabad. The accident was alleged to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. The deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospital, where he died on 15.9.2008 on account of the injury sustained by him. The mother of the claimant, who is the first respondent, consequently, claimed compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. PW2 was an eye-witness for the accident. According to PW2, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR itself was lodged by a third party by name MK Krishna Reddy. The FIR under Ex.A1 as well as the evidence of PW2 reveal that the offending car was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and that it not only hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling but also hit another motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 11AC 5958. Ex.A5 certified copy of the charge-sheet as well as Ex. A1 certified copy of the FIR show that the case was registered against the driver of the car under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) showing that the driver of the car hit more than one motorcycle. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report. The mediators opined that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car.

4. As rightly submitted by Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned Counsel for the claimant, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. There cannot be any question regarding the liability of the second respondent-owner of the offending car to compensate the death of the deceased.

5. Be it noted that the appellant-insurer is not disputing the mode and manner of the accident and as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. It is also not questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant. The contention of the insurer is that there was no insurance for the vehicle at the time of the accident an