JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 05.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 270/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,79,068/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Shaik Naseema, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the Tribunal.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s. 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of the death of Shaik Naseema, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, mother of the petitioners No. 2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.06.2011.

4. The facts show that on 26.06.2011 the 1st petitioner engaged the 1st respondent’s tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195 to transport the welding machine and other articles and the 1st petitioner along with deceased Shaik Naseema went to Hanumakondapalem cross road and the deceased raised the shop and while returning in the said tractor, at about 06.45 p.m., the 1st respondent drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and turned the tractor into Hanumakondapalem cross road and lost control over the tractor and turned turtle. Due to that the deceased, who was travelling in the tractor and trailer along with goods fell down from the trailer and the wheels of the tractor ran over the head of the deceased, and she died on the spot and on the report of defacto-complaint, the Station House Officer, Jaladanki Police Station was registered as case in Cr. No. 48/2011 U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of tractor and trailer.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement 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 offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195 is not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the petition filed by petitioners against the 2nd respondent is not maintainable.

6. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1195?

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

3. To what relief?

8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 and Exs.X-1 to X-3 were marked.

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,79,068/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.

10. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195, inspite of the evidence that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and trailer as gratuitous passenger only and as per Ex.B