This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 9.3.2010 in MVOP No. 1643 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 23.5.2006, the minor claimant, by name Munagada Chinni Kumari, a student, along with her relatives, boarded an auto bearing No. AP 31Y 926 at Ratnalapalem Village to proceed towards Narsipatnam. When the auto reached Narsipatnam, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. Consequently, the auto turned turtle at R & B Bungalow and due to the impact, the claimant sustained injury and one child died on the spot. On a report lodged with regard to the accident, the Police Kotauratla registered a case in Crime No. 20 of 2006 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver of the auto. The auto was also subjected to examination by the Motor Vehicle inspector (MVI), who endorsed against the column 'particulars of licence' as 'no driving licence' to the driver of the auto.

3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the father of the claimant and herself were examined as PWs. 1 and 2. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the D.P. awarding compensation of Rs.27,000/- to the claimant with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Since the claimant is a minor girl, the said amount was directed to be kept a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank.

4. Heard.

5. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is the owner of auto and it was insured with the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein. It is also not in dispute that EX.B-1 is the attested copy of the policy, EX.B2 is the legal notice issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Exs.B3 and B4 are the acknowledgments of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It appears that the Insurance Company - appellant herein had issued a legal notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce the driving licence of respondent No.1 driver of the auto, but there was no reply from them. As far as the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 - the driver of the auto, the same is not in dispute in this appeal.

6. As far as the amount awarded to the claimant i.e., Rs.27,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the Insurance Company - appellant herein, is liable or it has to be exonerated on the ground that respondent No.1 did not produce the driving licence as demanded by the Insurance Company. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal observed in Para No.17 of its order as under:

"As seen from the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, RI lost his driving licence in the accident only and he told• the same to the police and motor vehicle inspector also. The contents of Ex.A-1 and MVI report also reveal that R I did not produce driving licence. R3 insurance company did not make any efforts to know whether driver RI was having driving licence at the time of accident and whether he lost it in the said accident from RTA authorities. R3 neither took any steps to examine any officials from R.T.A.'s office to support his contention nor filed the investigator's report into the Court to show that RI drove the offending vehicle without having any valid driving licence at the time of accident. As such, the burden shifts on R3 company to prove that at the time of accident RI was not having valid driving licence. But to discharge burden, R3 did not choose to examine any official from RTA office and R3 did not even address a letter to RTO office to obtain clarification about the driving licence of RI."

7. The learned Co