JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.07.2006 in M.V.O.P. No. 661 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari District (for short, "the Tribunal"), the third respondent, National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Eluru, preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the M.V.O.P.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules as per Act (Amended) 54 of 1994, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.06.2004.

4. The claimant's case is that on 02.06.2004 at about 10.00 AM, while he was proceeding on his T.V.S. scooter from Velleru village to Hanuman junction to get cool drink bottles, and when he reached a burial ground, an auto bearing No.A.P. 16 X 7427 (for short, "the offending vehicle") driven by its driver, i.e., the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without blowing its horn, dashed the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru, for treatment and spent an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards medical treatment.

5. The first respondent, the offending vehicle's driver, remained exparte.

6. The second respondent, the offending vehicle's owner, filed his counter, contending that the offending vehicle was insured with the third respondent and that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident.

7. The third respondent, the insurer, filed its counter, contending that though the first respondent did not have a valid driving licence, the claim petition was filed for compensation.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.2.

9. Appraising the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident and awarded compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of petition till realization.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/ third respondent contending that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.75,000/- for three grievous injuries, having already granted Rs.2,04,000/- for the disability; it is nothing but duplication. The Tribunal erred in deducting the income of the injured 1/3rd without reliable evidence. The Tribunal failed to observe that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving license; he was charged under Section 3, read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in the absence of a driving licence, the offending vehicle's owner is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

11. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 in the appeal, has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Considering the material evidence on record and the upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel, the following points arise for consideration are,

I. Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the third respondent?

II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

POINT No. I:

a. The third respondent did not dispute the findings of the Tribunal regarding the manner of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant. However, to the extent of its liability though, the offending vehicle's driver violated the policy's terms and conditions, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disputed. Hence, the Tribunal's conclusion that the accident occurred due to the ras