JUDGMENT : The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in M.V.O.P.No.568 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet. 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 petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Kurrapothula Eswaramma in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.07.2007. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows : On 26.07.2007 the deceased along with others was proceeding on an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 04V 9232 to go to Rly.Kodur and when the auto reached near Mathamma temple near Mangampet on Kodur-Rajampet road, the driver of the auto tried to overtake a tipper going ahead of it. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.HR 64A 1207 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the auto. Resultantly, some of the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and some of the injured including the deceased died on the spot. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the lorry. The 3rd respondent is owner-cum-driver and the 4th respondent is insurer of the auto. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter affidavit by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the auto and hence, the owner and insurer of the auto are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 7. The 4th respondent/Insurance company also filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the auto and hence, the owner and insurer of the auto are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 7. The 4th respondent/Insurance company also filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is contended that the driver of the auto allowed about more passengers i.e., about 20 passengers, than the seating capacity to travel in the auto and thereby, the owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the driver of the auto did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; and that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of lorry. Therefore, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 8. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal : (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 or the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232? (2) Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 and the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 had valid and effective driving licences to drive the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 and auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 at the time of accident? (3) Whether the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 was insured with the 2nd respondent? Whether the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 is insured with the 4th respondent? And whether the policies were in force at the time of accident? (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? (5) To what relief? 9. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. 10. (5) To what relief? 9. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. 10. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and, accordingly, granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 12. The appellant pleaded that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the auto alone is responsible for the accident and even according to the petitioners, the drivers of both the vehicles are at fault. 13. Now, the points for determination are : (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 or the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 or the drivers of both the vehicles? and (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 14. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The pleadings of the petitioners in the claim petition are that on 26.07.2007 the deceased along with others was proceeding on an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 04V 9232 to go to Rly.Kodur and when the auto reached near Mathamma temple near Mangampet on Kodur-Rajampet road, the driver of the auto tried to overtake a tipper going ahead of it. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.HR 64A 1207 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the auto. As a result of which, the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and some of the injured including the deceased died on the spot. In the pleadings itself, it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. As a result of which, the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and some of the injured including the deceased died on the spot. In the pleadings itself, it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. In fact, in Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report also, it was mentioned that the drivers of the lorry and the auto were responsible for the accident and both the drivers drove their respective vehicles negligently. In Ex.A.6-certified copy of charge sheet also, it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. 15. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners need not establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Here, the entire record shows that due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the lorry and the auto, the accident occurred. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident and he also sustained injuries in the same accident. But, in cross-examination, he admits that the drivers of lorry and the auto drove the vehicles at high speed. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the lorry and the auto and both the vehicles are involved in the accident. But, the learned Tribunal, ignoring the pleadings of the petitioners in the petition as well as the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.6 and also the admission of P.W.2 in his cross-examination, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry only. Therefore, the said finding is liable to be set aside. 16. The accident occurred in the year 2007. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was doing masionary work at the time of accident. As per Ex.A.2-certified copy of post mortem report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of inquest report, the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “16” as per the II Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The dependants on the deceased are four in number. As per Ex.A.2-certified copy of post mortem report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of inquest report, the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “16” as per the II Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The dependants on the deceased are four in number. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd from out of the monthly income towards personal expenses of the deceased, arrived the loss of dependency to the family members of the deceased at Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000/- (Rs.3,000/- - Rs.1,000/-) x 12 months x multiplier “16”). Besides, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company fairly conceded before this Court that the offending lorry was insured with the Insurance company by the 1st respondent/owner of the lorry, the policy was also in force and the driver of the lorry was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 18. It is not in dispute that another vehicle involved in the accident i.e., auto was insured with the 4th respondent/Insurance company by the 3rd respondent/owner-cum-driver of the auto and the policy was also in force at the time of accident. As per the material on record and also the evidence of R.W.2, the driver of the auto was not having driving licence at the time of accident and the owner-cum-driver of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy by taking more passengers than the seating capacity. Here in the present case, the petitioners are third parties. Therefore, the owner-cum-driver of the auto i.e., the 3rd respondent cannot escape from his liability. 19. As already held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the lorry and the auto and both the vehicles are involved in the accident, the owner & insurer of lorry and the owner and insurer of the auto are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in the ratio of 50:50. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered. 20. In National Insurance Co. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered. 20. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” (ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Francisca Luiza Rocha Vs. K. Valarmathi, 2018 ACJ 1430 held as under : “6. In the present case the owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings to prove and establish that in spite of best efforts the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence was not known to him. What alone stood proved (by the Insurer) was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. As the driver had a licence but validity of the same had expired, we are of the view that the conclusion of the High Court that the said fact, by itself, constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance is not correct. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, we will have to hold that the insurance company (M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein would be liable to satisfy the award and thereafter seek recovery, if so advised, from the owner of the vehicle (Mrs. K. Valarmathi) i.e. Respondent No. 1. Consequently, with the aforesaid modification we dispose of the appeal in the above terms.” 21. Ltd.) i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein would be liable to satisfy the award and thereafter seek recovery, if so advised, from the owner of the vehicle (Mrs. K. Valarmathi) i.e. Respondent No. 1. Consequently, with the aforesaid modification we dispose of the appeal in the above terms.” 21. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the 4th respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay 50% of compensation to the petitioners in the first instance and later recover the same from the 3rd respondent, who is owner of the offending auto, by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment as awarded by the Tribunal. The 4th respondent/Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit 50% of compensation along with costs and interest before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment in the first instance and later recover the same from the 3rd respondent/owner of the offending auto by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the remaining 50% of compensation with costs and interest before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. The petitioners are entitled to their respective shares of compensation as apportioned by the learned Tribunal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.