JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited assailing the order dated 24.5.2007 in MVOP No.352 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC), Srikakulam whereby and whereunder the claimants were awarded Rs.1,53,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal arc that on 20.12.2001, the deceased was travelling as cleaner in the auto bearing No.AP30/T-6430 and when the auto reached near three road junction of Nowpada Village, at about 8.45 a.m., the auto was turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged 19 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident. Petitioners are the parents of the deceased and they are solely depending on the earnings of the deceased. Respondent No.1, being the owner of the auto and respondent No.2 being the insurer of it are jointly liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 - owner of the auto was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 insurance company filed counter denying the age and earnings of the deceased, and to put the petitioners to strict proof that they are the legal heirs and dependents on the deceased. It is stated that the accident occurred due to overload which is contrary to the terms of the policy and that the claim of the petitioners is excessive. 5. Based on the pleadings, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver which resulted the death of the deceased in the accident on account of injuries sustained by him and as to the entitlement of the petitioners to claim compensation and the liability of the respondents to pay the same. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased, was examined as PW1 besides examining eye-witness to the accident as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased, was examined as PW1 besides examining eye-witness to the accident as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2 - insurance company, RWI was examined and Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked. 7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record and after hearing both sides, allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation as referred in Para No.1 supra. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. 8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company appellant and the learned Counsel for the petitioners claimants. 9. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and other material brought on record by respondent No.2 in proper perspective and that the Tribunal ought not to have relied on Exs.A1 - FIR and A5-charge-sheet in Crime No.76 of 2001 of P.S. Nowpada, Srikakulam with regard to occurrence of the accident. The learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the driver of the, auto was in possession of driving licence for non-transport LMV(NT) vehicle, but he was driving passenger carrying vehicle at the, time of accident. Lastly, the learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal failed to notice that the evidence of PW2 is contrary to the averments of the claim petition. 10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-claimants submitted that the Tribunal after perusing the material on record and after hearing the Counsel on both sides, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded just compensation of Rs.1,53,000/-, and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference from this Court. 11. Exs.A1-FIR and A5-charge-sheet coupled with Exs.A2 to A4 indicate that the accident occurred on 20.12.2001 at 8.45 a.m., wherein the auto turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The evidence of PW2 with regard to the manner of accident and the death of the deceased due to injuries cannot be discarded since he was one of the passengers in the auto and he also sustained injuries along with the deceased and the same was reflected in Ex.A5-charge-sheet. The evidence of PW2 with regard to the manner of accident and the death of the deceased due to injuries cannot be discarded since he was one of the passengers in the auto and he also sustained injuries along with the deceased and the same was reflected in Ex.A5-charge-sheet. In the circumstances, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. 12. Though the evidence of PW2 that the deceased is one of the passengers in the auto is contrary to Exs.A1 and A5 and the averments made in the claim petition, wherein it is stated that the deceased was cleaner, the same does not in any way prevent the petitioners from claiming the compensation in view of the fact that the auto was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of accident to cover the risk of the passengers and additional premium of Rs.15/- was paid to cover the risk of driver/cleaner. Further, auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle and its driver has a valid light motor vehicle driving licence at the time of the accident and that the valid light motor driving licence is sufficient to drive a transport light motor vehicle, and as such, the insurance company cannot disown its liability. 13. In the circumstances and having regard to the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference from this Court and the same is hereby confirmed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.