JUDGMENT : The appellant is 3rd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioner and respondent Nos.1 & 2 in M.V.O.P.No.363 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioner filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 06.06.2006. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows : On 06.06.2006 the petitioner along with others were going to West Vipparu village near Tadepalligudem in West Godavari District to attend a function of his relatives in a Maruthi Omni Van bearing registration No.AP 31Q 2219 and when the van reached Venkayya canal bridge near Duvva village, N.H.5 road, Tanuku Mandal at about 11.30 p.m., the driver of the van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and as he applied brakes suddenly, the van turned turtle, resultantly, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries all over the body. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending van. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident and age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company that the 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving licence and there is no valid and subsisting policy issued by the Insurance company in favour of the 2nd respondent by the date of accident. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to the involvement of the motor vehicle (Maruthi Omni van) bearing No. AP 31Q 2219 when it was in use in a public place? 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to the involvement of the motor vehicle (Maruthi Omni van) bearing No. AP 31Q 2219 when it was in use in a public place? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained injuries and accordingly, granted an amount of Rs.69,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit by all the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 10. The appellant/Insurance company contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that when there is a violation of the conditions of the insurance policy, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 12. POINT: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In order to establish his case, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.4. In his evidence P.W.1 reiterated the contents of the petition. He further deposed that the S.H.O., Tanuku Rural P.S., registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2006 against the driver of the van i.e., the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C. There is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the respondents. In his evidence P.W.1 reiterated the contents of the petition. He further deposed that the S.H.O., Tanuku Rural P.S., registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2006 against the driver of the van i.e., the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C. There is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the respondents. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1-attested copy of first information report, Ex.A.3-attested copy of M.V.I. report and Ex.A.4-attested copy of charge sheet clearly proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van and in the said accident the petitioner sustained injuries. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 13. According to the petitioner, he sustained grievous injuries on his left arm, left wrist, shoulder, left side of the chest and other injuries, due to which, he cannot lift any weights and is unable to do any work and he spent Rs.1,20,000/- towards transport to hospital, medicines and extra nourishment. In support of his plea, he got examined Dr.K.V.Murali Mohan, who treated him, as P.W.2 and relied on Exs.A.2 and A.5 to A.7. Ex.A.2 is the attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.5 is a bunch of medical bills. Ex.A.6 is the original disability certificate. Ex.A.7 is the x-ray film. 14. P.W.2 deposed that he issued Ex.A.6-disability certificate stating that the petitioner is suffering with 30% disability which is partial and permanent in nature. Ex.A.2-wound certificate discloses that the petitioner sustained four grievous injuries. The evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.2 and A.6 reveals that the petitioner is suffering 30% disability. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in taking the disability of the petitioner as 30%. 15. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- and taken the age of the petitioner as 60 years. By applying the relevant multiplier ‘5’ applicable to the age group of the petitioner as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (4) SCJ 91, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of future income of the deceased at Rs.54,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 months x multiplier ‘5’ x 30% disability). By applying the relevant multiplier ‘5’ applicable to the age group of the petitioner as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (4) SCJ 91, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of future income of the deceased at Rs.54,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 months x multiplier ‘5’ x 30% disability). Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses as per II Schedule of the Act and as the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, though the petitioner filed Ex.A.5-bunch of medical bills to a tune of Rs.86,266/-. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.69,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner. 16. With regard to fastening of liability, on considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal in its order held that the offending van was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company by the 2nd respondent/owner of the van under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force on the date of accident and premium for eight persons was paid and the seating capacity of the vehicle is ‘8’, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal and the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, while confirming the decree and order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, in M.V.O.P.No.363 of 2010. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.