ORDER : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the Award and decree dated 09.07.2009 passed in MVOP No. 499 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC) Ananthapur (for short “the tribunal”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P. against whom, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, have filed a claim petition before the tribunal, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 28.05.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., near Kalvapalli village. When the said auto reached near Kalavappali village then the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact the auto turned turtle on the road side. As a result of which the deceased Yerriswamy received grievous injury on his head. Immediately he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur, but on the way he died. On information, the police registered a case in Crime No. 32 of 2006 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the Auto bearing No. AP 02 U 9928 belongs to the 1st respondent. 3. It is further averred in the petition that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. He was working as an agricultural coolie and thereby earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The entire income of the deceased was contributed to his family. Due to death of the deceased the petitioners are lost their bread winner. 4. 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the tribunal. 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and also denied their liability to pay compensation. On consideration of the evidence of witnesses, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,000/- against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of retaliation holding that respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the insurance company has proved the violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy by examining RW-1/S. Raghu. It is further submitted that PW-2 stated in his evidence that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving licence. Therefore, the findings of the tribunal holding that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 2nd respondent has not produced any evidence by summoning RTO officials and not produced proper documents to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle has not possessing valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 8. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and respondents that the insurance company has not taken any steps to summon RTO officials to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle does not possess valid driving licence by the date of accident. The contention raised by the insurance company is not acceptable in respect of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is obvious that the tribunal has considered all other aspects and awarded compensation which does not require any interference. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Award and decree dated 09.07.2009 passed in MVOP No. 499 of 2007 by the tribunal. No costs. 11. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.