JUDGMENT :

K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J.

1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Markapur in MVOP No. 506 of 2009 dated 31.8.2010 in granting compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., the 2nd respondent-insurer therein, filed the present appeal. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The appellant in MACMA is the 2nd respondent-insurer, respondents 2 and 3 are the claimants and the 3rd respondent is the owner of the tractor bearing No. AP 27 U 2383 and trailer bearing No. AP 27 U 2384 in the original petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Sections 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Nayab Rasool, who died in a motor vehicle accident, that took place on 18.9.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. Case of the petitioners is that, the driver of the tractor bearing No. AP 27 U 2383 and trailer bearing No. AP 27 U 2384, without observing the surroundings reversed the tractor, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down under the tyre of the trailer, causing his death instantaneously; police registered a case against the driver of the tractor; at the time of the accident, the deceased was 11 years old, studying 6th standard, with better prospects of life; the 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer; as the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

4. The 1st respondent filed written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations of the claim petition, contending that the driver of the tractor is having valid driving licence and that his vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force by the date of accident and hence, if the petitioners are entitled for compensation, the 2nd respondent, being the insurer, has to pay the same.

5. The 2nd respondent/insurer filed written statement before the Tribunal, denying the allegations of the claim petition and contending that there is no live coverage of the insurance policy at the time of accident; the tractor is registered under non-transport category and the trailer is under agricultural purpose; at the time of accident, it was altered as water tanker for the purpose of carrying water in violation of terms of the policy and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and that the amount claimed is highly excessive.

6. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal has framed three issues. On behalf of claimants, PW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B5 were marked.

7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings, coupled with the contents of Exs. A1-FIR and A5-charge-sheet, recorded a finding on Issue No. 1 that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent; on Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer and the policy was in existence as on the date of accident and that the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization and directed the respondents to pay the same jointly and severally.

8. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2/cross-objectors. Though notice was served on the 3rd respondent, none appeared on his behalf. Perused the record.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal having co