JUDGMENT:

The appellant is second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.1138 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl. District Judge, at Visakhapatnam, and the respondents are the Petitioner/Claimant and 1st respondent in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed in the claim application. The Claimant has filed Claim Petition under section166 of MV Act of r/w 455, for claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor Vehicle accident occurred on 26.08.2006.

3. The case of the claimant is that he is earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing agriculture labour works and that on 26.08.2006 at about 6 pm, the claimant along with her husband were returning from their field at Butchiyyapeta Village, at that time an auto bearing No. AP 31 Y 3845 driven by the 1strespondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed to the injured and that the claimant received grievous injuries.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent - insurance company filed a counter denying the claim and further pleaded that the driver of the auto is not having any kind of driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:

i) Whether the pleaded motor vehicle accident occurred on 26.08.2006, resulting in injuries and disability to the claimant?

ii) Whether the accident was due to the fault of driver of auto bearing No. AP 31 Y

3845?

iii) Whether the auto bearing No. AP 31 Y 3845 belongs to R1 and stood insured with R2 insurance company on the date of accident and if so, whether the policy covers the risk of claimant?

iv) Whether the driver of auto bearing No. AP 31 Y 3845 was having valid driving license at the time of accident?

v) Whether claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and what is the liability of respondents?

vi) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the Petitioner, her self-examined P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor who treated claimant as a P.W.2 and got Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the respondent insurance company RW1 to RW3 are examined and marked Exs.B1 to B5 and marked Ex.X1.

7. After considering evidence on record the Tribunal has given finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1 and in the said accident the claimant received injuries and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner, aggrieved against the said Order, the insurance company filed the present appeal the Learned counsel for appellant contents that the driver of the Vehicle is not having any kind of driving license at the time of accident, but the Tribunal give a finding that the insurance company is also liable to pay the claim along with the 1st respondent.

8. The leaned counsel for claimant argued that the trial court rightly decreed the claim by granting Rs.1,50,000/- to the Petitioner towards compensation.

9. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal committed any error in giving finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Owner-cum-driver of the auto bearing No. AP 31Y3845, and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

10. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined herself as a P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 and also relied on evidence of P.W.1. In cross- examination of P.W.1 nothing was elicited from P.W.1. to discredit the testimony of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A4 clearly goes to show that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 31Y3845.As per Exs.A1 and A4 and so also as per evidence of P.W.1 there is a negligence on the part of driver of the auto bearing No. AP 31Y3845 driven by the 1st respondent No positive evidence is placed by the 2ndrespondent to disprove the contents of charge sheet.

1