JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.665 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur and the respondents are the petitioners and first respondent in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Dasari Narasimhulu in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 18.06.2011.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in a Tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the tractor turned turtle, resulting which the deceased Dasari Narasimhulu sustained grievous injuries, later succumbed to injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Narasimhulu.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor and trailer which involved in the accident driven the same in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident?

ii. Whether the deceased Dasari Narasimhulu was an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident?

iii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence on the date of accident?

iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from which respondent and to what extent?

v. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/Insurance company filed the present appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

11. POINT:-

The averments in the petition filed by the claimants clearly goes to show that petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased and the deceased was aged about 65 years and hale and healthy and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing coolie works and maintaining his family.

12. The further averments in the petition filed by the claimants are that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it was turned turtle, due to that the deceased sustained grievous injuries, then immediately the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Dharmavaram in an ambulance and from there he was shifted to Kurnool Government Hospital, later the deceased succumbed to injuries. First respondent was set exparte. Second respondent filed counter by pleading that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the tractor and that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

13. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner herself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet clearly goes to sh