JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (FTC), Anantapur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.371 of 2007 dated 05.03.2009.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP 02 V 6275, belonging to the 4th respondent herein. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are wife and sons of the N.P.Govindu (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’).

3. According to the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal, on 11.03.2007, the deceased and others boarded an auto bearing No.AP 02 V 6275 at Kutagulla cross to go to their village. When the auto reached near Nadimpalli on Kadiri-Anantapur, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the auto turned turtle. As a result, the deceased and others sustained injuries. Then the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kadiri. In turn shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur for better treatment and he succumbed to injuries while taking treatment. By the time of accident the deceased was aged about 42 years and earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing seasonal business and attending agricultural works. Being dependents, the claimants claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against owner and insurer of auto bearing No.AP 02 V 6275.

4. Counter and additional counter were filed by the insurer of the auto, denying all the material allegations, stated that at the time of accident the auto was over crowded with passengers by violating the permit conditions, as such the accident occurred; that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto; that the insurance company has not received any premium in respect of the auto and they never issued any policy and as such prays to dismiss the petition.

5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 02 V 6275 or not?

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

3. To what relief?

6. In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the insurer of the auto, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.

7. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and at the time of accident the driver possess Non-transport driving license, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the owner of the said auto, however, the insurer of the said auto was directed to satisfy the award amount at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the auto.

8. It is against the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 02 V 6275.

9. Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants.

10. Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of the auto committed violation of permit conditions by allowing more passengers other than seating capacity of the vehicle and thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award. He further submits that the appellant never issued any policy in respect of auto as the cheque issued by the owner of the auto towards payment of premium was dishonoured. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

11. Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants against owner of the auto and directed the appe