JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri N.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/Insurance Company and Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is directed by the claimants against the award and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.131/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl.District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

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

4. The appellants/claimants filed the claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Gollapalli Vasudev (hereinafter referred as deceased) in motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.11.2008.

5. The case of the claimants is that on 11.11.2008 the deceased and others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 37X 7322 to go to Kaikaram village for coolie works; the auto reached a place near police station at Tadepalligudem on Eluru-Tadepalligudem road at about 02.30 p.m.; the offending vehicle i.e., Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 29M 2219 was coming from Eluru and proceeding towards Tadepalligudem came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto; as a result, the auto turned turtle; the deceased and other passengers travelling in the auto sustained injuries; they were shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem; the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital; police registered a case in Cr.No.174/2008 for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code; the claimants are the dependants on the deceased; hence, they filed claim petition for compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the offending vehicle. The 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The 4th respondent is the driver-cum-owner of auto and the 5th respondent is the insurer of the auto.

6. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed written statement, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation; and contended that the driver of the auto permitted many passengers, then the seating capacity; he failed to control the auto; hence, the auto turned turtle; and the passengers travelling in the auto sustained injuries.

8. The 5th respondent filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition, contended that the 4th respondent has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The 4th respondent is an unnecessary party impleaded to the petition. The 5th respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

9. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 29M 2219 driven by its driver i.e., 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claimed amount as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

10. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws-1 and 2 and five documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5 respectively. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents/Insurance Company. Copies of insurance policies were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 by consent.

11. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. It is an admitted fact that none of the respondents challenged the s