JUDGMENT:

The appellant is 2nd respondent Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 2010, dated 12.11.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge at Guntur, and the respondents herein are the petitioners and

1strespondent in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of Bhaskararao, in a Road Accident that occurred on 02.01.2003. at about

02:30 PM.

4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The legal heirs of the deceased Marri Bhaskararao and the 1stpetitioner is the father of deceased and 2nd petitioner is the none other than wife of the deceased Bhaskarrao and on 02.01.2003 at about 02:30 PM., while Bhaskrarao and one Thota Jayaramaiah, while attending agricultural work with Tractor bearing No. AP 7 U 2385 on which they were coming, the driver of the tractor drove the same in rash and negligent manner, as such, the tractor fell down near Tobacco barrens of Neerukonda on the road of Kuragallu to Neerukonda, as a result, Bhaskararao and Jayaramaiah received grievous injuries and brought to a private hospital at Mangalagiri and the doctor declared Bhaskararao dead. Thus, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

6. The case of the 2nd respondent is as follows:- The alleged accident took place on 02.01.2003, but the petitioners failed to explain the delay for filing the petition, as such, the claim of the petitioners is barred by limitation. On the other hand, the driver of the tractor has no valid driving license to drive the same at the time of accident and the tractor was not insured with respondent No.2, Insurance company and there are more number of passengers than the seating capacity, as such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and 1st respondent who violated the terms and conditions of policy, alone is liable to pay compensation if any, to the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners is excessive. While denying the age, income, contribution to the family by Bhaskararao, the petitioners were called upon to put the same to strict proof.

7 Based on the above pleadings the, Tribunal framed following issues:

1) Whether Marri Bhaskar Rao died in a motor accident on 02.01.2003? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No. AP07 U 2385 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

3)Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled?

8. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 is examined, and marked Ex.A.1 to A.5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT NO.1:

10. In the present case the petition is filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act, therefore, the petitioners are not required to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to use of motor vehicle. To establish that the accident occurred due to use of motor vehicle and death of Bhaskararao in the accident, father of deceased i.e. 1st petitioner was examined as PW1. No doubt, he is not a direct witness to the occurrence of accident and documentary evidence available on record Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and the evidence of PW1clearly establishes that involvement of the tractor in a motor vehicle accident. The contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company is that the deceased Bhaskararao sit by the side of the driver and he is a gratuitous passenger. Here in the present case, I have clearly stated above, the petition is filed under section 163-A M.V. Act. Therefore, i