1. In this Appeal, United India Insurance Company challenges the Award dated 08.08.2011, passed in O.P. No.573 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the petitioners and Respondent No.6 is the owner of the vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to institution of O.P. No.573 of 2002 are as under : On 11.02.2002, the deceased Katikala Jangaiah boarded Tata Sumo motor vehicle bearing registration No.AP-28-K- 5258 at Hyderabad and was proceeding towards Shamshabad. In the mid night at about 12.00 hours, when the Tata Sumo vehicle reached near Budwel Railway Station on National High Way No.7, the vehicle met with an accident as it hit against the stationed lorry bearing registration No.AP-11-T-310 from its back side. Due to which, the deceased Jangaiah and other inmates of the Tata Sumo vehicle sustained bleeding injuries and the deceased Jangaiah succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Crime No.66 of 2002 was registered by the Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad. As no compensation was paid to the dependents of the deceased, wife, three minor daughters and mother of the deceased instituted O.P. No.573 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest and costs. The owner of the vehicle and United India Insurance Company Limited are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal.

4. In support of their claim for compensation, petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 31 years and was earning Rs.3,000/-p.m. as an employee in the cloth show-room and he died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle. In support of their claim for compensation, they contended that they were solely dependent on the deceased and due to his sudden demise, the entire future of the family has been adversely effected and children were unable to pursue their studies and further they lost their source of income and love and affection and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Initially, O.P. No. 573 of 2002 was initiated under Section 166 of the M.V. Act; subsequently petitioners by filing I.A. No.2238 of 2010 sought leave of the Tribunal to amend their claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and the same was ordered on 15.04.2011.

5. Respondent No.1 did not oppose the claim whereas, Respondent No.2, Insurance Company opposed the claim and took the usual defences i.e. the crime vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the vehicle driver did not possess valid driving license and that the claim made by the petitioners is excessive and disproportionate. The Insurance Company filed additional counter-affidavit taking the stand that the policy executed by the owner of the vehicle is an Act policy and therefore the deceased is not covered by the policy and that the Tata Sumo vehicle was a private car and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. The Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues for consideration :

1. Whether the pleaded accident is occurred on account of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle-Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28K 5258?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of second respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. The Insurance Company sought leave of the Tribunal to contest on all issues agitated by the petitioners, which are normally to be contested by the owner of the vehicle, since the first respondent has not filed counter affidavit. I.A. No.2268 of 2011 filed to this extent under Section