JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been fled by the original respondent - Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.90 of 2013 by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, dated 28-08-2018, whereby the claim petition fled by the present respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, came to be allowed against the present appellant.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that ;

Mother of the present respondents i.e. original claimants by name Anita Rameshwar Mote was travelling on 28-11-2012 in Max Jeep bearing No.MH-44/ B-076 to Sultanpur for labour work. It is stated that, due to the acquaintance with respondent No.1, she had boarded the said jeep. When the jeep reached near Government Rest House Georai, on Georai - Beed road, the driver of the jeep lost control over the jeep. Due to the high speed, the jeep turned towards its right side and gave dash to the wall of the bridge. The vehicle got toppled and as a result of the same, Anita had received severe injuries. She was shifted to Hospital, however while she was being taken to Aurangabad, she succumbed to the injuries. Driver of the jeep was prosecuted by police. Deceased was 30 years old lady. Her husband had expired earlier, and therefore, she was looking after the claimants. By doing household work she used to get Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6000/- per month. Claimants had claimed compensation of Rs.9,64,000/-, however restricted the same to Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fee. The said jeep was owned by respondent No.1 and it was insured with respondent No.2 on the date of the accident, and therefore, compensation has been claimed from both the respondents jointly and severally.

3. Respondent No.2 fled written statement at Exhibit 12 and resisted the claim. The date, manner of accident and averments regarding negligence on the part of jeep driver have been denied specifically. Age, occupation and income of the deceased has been denied. It was contended that, the driver of the jeep was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the jeep on the date of the accident, and therefore, there is breach of terms of policy. The deceased was travelling as a fair paid passenger and there were in all 19 passengers travelling at the relevant time in the jeep which was not the having valid permit. On these grounds the Insurance Company claimed exoneration.

4. It will not be out of place to mention here that, when the summons of the petition was issued to respondent No.1, it was returned unserved on the ground that, respondent No.1 expired on 05-01-2013, and in view of the order passed on Exhibit 15, the Tribunal disposed of the matter against respondent No.1 as abated and the matter proceeded further.

5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues were framed. Only claimants have led oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of jeep driver. The Insurance Company has failed to prove breach of terms of policy of any count, and therefore, the claimants were entitled to get compensation. Compensation of Rs.8,46,000/- has been awarded together with interest @ of 8 % per annum from the date of the institution of petition till actual realization of the entire amount. This award is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.R. Deshmukh for the appellant Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. S. R. Shirsat for the respondents.

7. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the learned Tribunal failed to see that, the legal representatives of respondent No.1 were not brought on record though the fact was reported. The learned Tribunal has wrongly held that, the petition was maintainable under Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact no cause o