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 1st respondent 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 1st petitioner 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. 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 PW1 clearly 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, it is not required to prove rashness and negligence or violation of any rules under the M.V. Act. Therefore, the evidence available on record clearly proves that the accident occurred due to use of Motor Vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No. AP 07 U 2385. 11. Therefore, it is not required to prove rashness and negligence or violation of any rules under the M.V. Act. Therefore, the evidence available on record clearly proves that the accident occurred due to use of Motor Vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No. AP 07 U 2385. 11. Ex.A3 attested copy of P.M. report and Ex.A4 certified copy of M.V. Inspector’s report, clearly establishes about the accident occurred due to use of Motor Vehicle, Ex.A3 attested copy of PM report, Ex.A5 certified copy of Inquest report, proves the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The oral and documentary evidence clearly proves that the accident occurred due to use of Motor Vehicle, and the deceased received injuries and succumbed with injuries received by him in the said accident. The Tribunal gave the said finding, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal, the Tribunal gave the said finding by giving cogent reasons, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 12. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under all heads and the deceased was a married and 2nd petitioner was his wife, 1st petitioner was his father. He was aged 25 years as per PM report, therefore multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘17’, as per section 163 of M.V. Act. 13. As per the case of the petitioner, the deceased was only an agricultural colie, on considering the evidence on record by giving cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and annual income is Rs.36,000/- and 1/3rd shall be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and 2/3rd shall be taken as contribution to the family. Therefore, the contribution to the family of deceased comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Therefore, the compensation payable to the petitioners under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24000x17). The petitioners claimed Rs.1,70,000/- towards loss of dependency. Here the claim of the petitioners is restricted to Rs.1,70,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the same, under the head of loss of dependency, therefore, the same is awarded. 14. Therefore, the compensation payable to the petitioners under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24000x17). The petitioners claimed Rs.1,70,000/- towards loss of dependency. Here the claim of the petitioners is restricted to Rs.1,70,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the same, under the head of loss of dependency, therefore, the same is awarded. 14. By giving cogent reasons the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that an amount Rs.5,000/- is hereby awarded to the 2nd petitioner towards loss of consortium and an amount of Rs.2,500/- awarded under the head of loss of estate, and the learned Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. By giving cogent reasons the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimants are entitled total compensation of Rs.1,79,500/-. 15. The learned counsel for Insurance company severely contended that the accident is not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor, but same is not justifiable because the claim application is field under section 163-A of M.V.Act. here the petitioners furnished details of cover note in the long cause title itself under the name of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and copy of the said cover note is also filed along with the claim application. As per the case of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent issued the cover note bearing No.79102, valid from 20.03.2002 to 19.04.2003. The original policy is with the owner of the crime vehicle and copy of the said policy is available with 2nd respondent. here the claimants are only third parties. But for the reasons best known to the 1st and 2nd respondent they did not chose to file the policy copy. As per motor vehicle Inspector report Ex.A4, the said vehicle was insured with National Insurance company limited, Divisional Office, Vijayawada under cover Note No. HRO/79102. 16. This Court has clearly stated above the original policy with the owner/1st respondent and copy is available with the 2nd respondent Insurance company and the same is also available in the records of Insurance company, but for the reasons best known to the respondents no evidence by the respondents. 17. The petitioners are only third parties, they are not in a possession of the policy copy, the entire burden is on the 2nd respondent or 1st respondent, to produce the copy of the policy which is available, the 2nd respondent also fails to produce copy of the policy and relevant records. 17. The petitioners are only third parties, they are not in a possession of the policy copy, the entire burden is on the 2nd respondent or 1st respondent, to produce the copy of the policy which is available, the 2nd respondent also fails to produce copy of the policy and relevant records. Therefore, the 1st respondent being the owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the tractor bearing No. AP 7 U 2385 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners. The learned Tribunal came to the said conclusion by giving cogent reasons, therefore, there is no need interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, the order dated 12.11.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Guntur, is confirmed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.