JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.419 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam questioning the order of the Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the 3rd respondent United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager has preferred this appeal questioning the order passed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the awarded compensation.

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

3. The case of the claimant is that he had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Sagubandi Udaya Bhaskara Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.12.2008.

4. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased, 3rd petitioner is the unmarried sister of the deceased. The deceased is aged about 24 years and was working in the Army as a sapper in Task Force and getting a salary of Rs.15,095/- per month, and he is unmarried.

5. The claimant's case is that on 21.12.2008, the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing No.AP30H/3433 at about 03.30 PM, when he reached Subhadrapuram junction, the 1st respondent drove the bus bearing No.AP.30T/6996 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle') rashly and negligently without blowing the horn and suddenly turned the vehicle, due to which, the back side footboard of crime vehicle hit the motorcycle of the deceased. He fell from the motorcycle, received injuries, and died on the spot.

6. The 1st respondent is the driver, and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, and they remained exparte.

7. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed its written statement that the petitioners have to prove that the 1st respondent has a valid driving license and the vehicle is validly insured with the 3rd respondent and has to prove the age, income and avocation of the deceased. The claim is very excessive. The 1st respondent does not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent willfully violated the conditions, and therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable for indemnification on behalf of the owner.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim on behalf of the claimant during the trial, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A8. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 and X2.

9. After appreciation of 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 deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with Interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization against the 3rd respondent.

10. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/3rd respondent/insurance company contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Ex.X1 Driving License Extract and the same was issued to Mr Bone Shankr Rao and not to the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., Bone Apparao. The driving license produced before the Police and to the Court is fake and fabricated. Despite proving the same, the Tribunal, without considering the same, erroneously fastened the liability solely because the claimants are third parties and are entitled to compensation. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that RW.2 deposed before the Court that the DL.No.DLRAP035102 842000, dated 21.06.2008, was issued to one B.Shankar Rao and not to the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., B.Apparao. The offending vehicle's driver did not have any license. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that RW.2 was summoned and he admitted that Bone Shankar Rao die