JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by 3rd respondent/Insurance company challenging the award dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.448 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, to the petitioners for the death of the deceased Md.Shakhasim @ Saleem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred in the trial Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally, the petitioners filed an application U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and costs on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 21.05.2011 at 7.30 a.m., near Vivekananda Park, Brahmapuram, Pedana Town while the deceased was proceeding from Guduru towards Pedana on his cycle, under the jurisdiction of Pedana Police Station.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased was working as Supervisor under a contractor Borra Seshagiri Rao at Machilipatnam and Pedana and used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m., On 21.05.2011 the deceased started on his cycle from Guduru to Pedana village on the contract works and when he reached Vivekananda Park at Brahmapuram, Pedana town, at 7.30 hrs., the 1st respondent, who was the driver of crime Auto bearing No.AP 16TA 5804 while proceeding from Kappaladoddi towards Pedana, drove the crime auto in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, lost control over the auto and dashed the cycle of the deceased from its back, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on the head, other parts of the body and died on the spot. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, where post mortem was conducted and issued a report to that effect. Pedana Police registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2011 against the 1st respondent under Section 304-A IPC.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, filed counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime auto and liability to pay compensation and contended that the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident to drive the crime auto and it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the 2nd respondent/insured, as such 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent being the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 16TA 5804?

2. Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of 3rd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The respondents 1 and 2 before the trial Court were set exparte.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A8 coupled with the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 and B2, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime auto bearing No.AP 16TA 5804 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization with costs, fixing the liability on all the respondents 1 to 3, however the 3rd respondent insurance company was given liberty to reimburse the amount of compensation from the 2nd respondent owner of the crime auto as the