A. Shankar Narayana, J.

1. The National Insurance Company, represented by its Branch Manager, Chittoor, the second respondent in MVOP No. 174 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, is the present appellant. Aggrieved of the order, dated 16th March 2005, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at 9% p.a., the instant appeal is preferred seeking to set aside the said award on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the insurance vehicle had expired well before the accident and, in such a case, the owner of the vehicle/insured alone is liable to pay compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the original petition before the Tribunal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 19.10.2001, one Pasupuleti Krishnaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), the son of the first petitioner and brother of the second petitioner respectively, boarded a jeep bearing Registration No. AP-04-C-6699 alongwith others on their personal work to go to Kadapa, as no buses were plying on 19.10.2001, and when the said jeep reached near Kondapeta Cross Roads on Kadapa-Kurnool National Highway near Chennur Bridge, at about 9.00 p.m., a lorry came in opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep, due to which, he sustained injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa, for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The petitioners claim that the said Krishnaiah was aged about 45 years on the date of accident and doing Class-III contract works earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum and he died in unmarried status and he was contributing the entire earnings for the family and the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry, are responsible to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- laid under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 475 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

3. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent-Insurance Company opposed the claim. It is according to the second respondent that in the said accident two persons died, who were travelling in the said jeep, which shows that the jeep was heavily loaded with the passengers and there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and, thus, the driver of the jeep was responsible for the said accident and, therefore, the owner and Insurance Company of the jeep are proper and necessary parties. It is also specifically stated that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the second respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. The Tribunal framed the following three issues about the responsibility for the accident.

"1. Whether the death of the deceased by name Pasupuleti Krishnaiah, S/o. Subbarayudu (late) occurred on 19.10.2001 at 3.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No. APD-9756 by its driver belonging to respondent No. 1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief."

6. During enquiry, the first petitioner examined herself as PW1, besides examining an eye-witness to the occurrence as PW2, and marked Exs.A1 to A5 in order to substantiate the claim laid by them. On behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked, even Ex.X1, which is copy of the extract of issue of driving licence, was also marked.

7. The Tribunal, on issue No. 1, basing on the evidence of PW2 supported by Exs.A1 to A4, held it in favour of the petitioners.

8. On issue No. 2, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (2) ALD 36 (SC) : (2004) 3 S