The 3rd respondent to the claim petition is no other than the insurer of crime auto (bearing No.AP 16 Y 6612) of 2nd respondent driven by 1st respondent, having been aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna District, at Machilipatnam (for short, ’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.458 of 2008 dated 21.02.2012, awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as prayed for with interest at the rate of 7 ½% per annum against the respondents 2 and 3of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as prayed for with interest at the rate of 7 ½% per annum against the respondents 2 and 3 who are owner and insurer with joint and several liability, filed the appeal seeking to set aside the finding of the tribunal and exempt the insurer – respondent No.3 from the liability saying the respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle is only liable for paying the compensation.

2. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents 6 and 7 herein who are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the claim petition (driver and owner of the auto), were served with notice are called absent with no representation. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein who are the claimants in the claim petition represented by their advocate M/s. Rama Pallapothu.

3. In fact the counsel for the said claimants having submitted earlier that for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, taken time to submit further arguments to dated 09.12.2013 from 06.12.2013 and did not appear later even the matter was again posted to 12.12.2013. Hence taken as heard the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and further arguments of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

3(a). The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submission during the hearing in nutshell of the insurer are that the tribunal is erred in its finding at para No.23 fastening joint liability despite the auto with seating capacity of 1+3 passengers was overloaded with as many as 12 passengers other than driver and from the fact that the 1st respondent-driver not at all possessed driving license and he so deposed having been examined RW.3 at the instance of the insurer after the evidence of RW.2 owner of the vehicle with a version he has gone through the Xerox copy of driving license of the 1st respondent and permitted to drive and furnished said Xerox copy to the insurer and not having any copy with him to file. The driver as RW.3 categorically deposed that he has not having any driving license and he did not apply and he did not give any copy of such license to owner. It is the further contention that the tribunal went wrong in saying that it is the onus of the insurer further to examine the RTO authorities concerned in proof of respondent No.1-driver has no driving license, as such the respondent did not discharge the burden, thereby in holding the insurer also liable. It is also the contention that from the factual matrix even it is proved, said finding of the tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case and erroneous outcome in fixing liability on the respondent No.3-insurer despite proved violation to the terms of the policy saying for non examination of RTO concerned without looking into what more left even from driver deposed and thereby the award of the tribunal is sought to be set aside and the insurer is to be exonerated particularly by relying upon Sardari vs. Sushilkumar (2008 (1) LS-SC-177). Onthe facts from the tractor driver admitted that no license ever possessed and does not know how to drive the tractor that caused the accident that held exonerated the insurer from the breach of Section 3 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Act in entrusting the vehicle to a driver without no license by the owner. It is also contended that awarding of Rs.3,00,000