JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.02.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 281 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Nandyal (for short, "the Tribunal"), the 2nd respondent, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its Legal Officer, Jaipur, Rajasthan state, preferred the present appeal questioning the Tribunal's Award.

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

3. The claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 (v) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,25,000/-for the death of Y. Kasi Viswanath (hereinafter will be referred to as deceased).

4. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. It is her case that on 01.03.2010 at about 02.00 PM, the deceased and another were engaged by the 1st respondent for loading and unloading the fertilizers in the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP04-A-8179 and 8180 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle') at District cooperative Agricultural Society, A. Kodur Village. Due to the holiday of Society, the deceased and other coolies were returning to Somayajulapalli; when the offending vehicle reached the outskirts of A. Kodur Village at about 07.30 PM, its driver drove it rashly and negligently and lost control, due to which the said vehicle fell into ditches. As a result of which, the deceased received injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal; He died on 02.03.2010 at 01.00 PM while undergoing treatment—a case in Cr.No.2 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. came to be registered against the offending vehicle’s driver in Bandi Atmakur Police Station.

5. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed a counter contending that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident; there was a violation of the insurance policy.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 and two got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 on behalf of the claimants.RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1, and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle's driver at the time of the accident; the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,000/-to the claimant against the respondents 1 and 2 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of registration of petition till the date of realization.

9. I heard the learned Counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the offending vehicle was meant for agriculture purposes; Exs.X1 and X2 have supported it. Still, contrary to it, the 1st respondent used the offending vehicle to carry fertilizer. The offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident; the Tribunal ignored that the 1st respondent did not engage the deceased, and one Alle Chenna Reddy engaged him. The deceased was an unauthorized passenger and contributed to the alleged accident. The offending vehicle’s owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the Tribunal’s order is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal failed to see that the offending vehicle is not covered by a permit to carry coolies. No seating capacity is provided to anyone other than the driver as per the registration certificate, i.e., Exs.X1 and X2. The Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Heard both sides, carefully perused the record.

13. Considering the material evidence on record and the upon hearing the argument of both the learned Co