JUDGMENT The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31st January, 2009 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondia. (in short "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 13/2006. 2. The accident in question occurred on 29.5.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. Near Doubling Ground, Gondia; while respondent no. 1 was driving Mahindra pick-up (auto) bearing No.MH-35-K-431 started with rapid speed in rash and negligent manner. Prashant Chouhan (deceased), a nine-year old boy fell from the vehicle and the wheels ran over the deceased, which resulted into fatal injuries to said Prashant. The offending vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. The claim was resisted tooth and nail, on the ground that Prashant was, at the time of accident, climbed over the auto without knowledge of the Driver and when the Driver started the auto, the accident occurred. Thus, denying negligence of the Driver, the respondent nos.1 and 2 above, have prayed for dismissal of claim. The insurer also denied the claim and contended that the insurer is not liable for compensation on account of breach of policy conditions. 3. The Tribunal found that the victim died as a result of driving Mahindra pick-up Auto No.MH-35-K-431 driven rashly and negligently. The claim of Rs.1.58,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in full, was granted. The respondent nos.1 to 3 in the Claim Petition were directed to pay compensation jointly and severally. 4. Mr. D. N. Kukday, learned Advocate for the appellant in support of appeal, contended that deceased-Prashant was sitting on top of the auto which was parked without knowledge of Respondent no.2 (driver), who fell and came under the rear wheel. It is contended that respondent no.2 was wrongly held liable for negligent or rash driving. 5. The learned Advocate for claimant opposed submissions on the ground that the Driver ought to have taken reasonable care while starting the motor-vehicle, as a reasonable, ordinary prudent person would take. He had valid driving license and the offending motor vehicle was insured as against third party risk. The claimant thus supported judgment and award as part under the circumstances. 6. The submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent/claimant are convincing and reliable in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the impugned judgment. He had valid driving license and the offending motor vehicle was insured as against third party risk. The claimant thus supported judgment and award as part under the circumstances. 6. The submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent/claimant are convincing and reliable in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the impugned judgment. The Tribunal did examine documentary evidence of death certificate, insurance policy (Exh.33), oral evidence of claimant's mother: as also pleadings. PM notes spot panchnama. FIR lodged by Bhojraj Khobragade at the Police Station, age of the victim and concluded that in the given set of facts that the Driver could not have seen any body seated at the top of the auto; but he should have taken care before starting the motor vehicle, which the driver failed to take and hence the Driver is responsible for driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently causing accident which could have been averted and thus ordered compensation in the sum of Rs.1,58,000/- with interest at the rate on 5% per annum, from the date of petition till realization. Quantum is not under challenge. 7. Under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. if the vehicle is insured in respect of third party risks, it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgment and award in respect of liability statutorily required to be covered by Insurance Policy unless the insurer company by leading evidence brings its case within exceptions stated under section 149 of the said Act. No exception was brought on record by evidence by the insurer (appellant). Hence, I do not find any serious infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgment and award. 8. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.