JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.339 of 2013 dated 30.10.2015. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-27AP/8385 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife, son, and daughter of Yerramsetty Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are rider and owner of the said crime motorcycle, respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 19.03.2023, while deceased proceeding towards Koniki Village from Inkollu on his motorcycle and when he reached near Vasundhara Cold Storage on Inkollu-Koniki road at about 03.00 p.m., the rider of the crime motorcycle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted, the deceased sustained multiple injuries, while undergoing treatment, he was succumbed to injuries on 21.03.2013. ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the rider, owner, and insurer of the crime motorcycle. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not due to the 1st respondent/rider of the crime motorcycle and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the deceased Yerramsetty Venkateswarlu died in a road accident which took place on 19.3.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. near Cold Storage on Koniki – Inkollu road by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No.AP -27AP/8385 by its rider? 2. Whether the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP- 27AP/8385 is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? 3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and against whom? and 5.To what relief the petitioners are entitled?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. 3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and against whom? and 5.To what relief the petitioners are entitled?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and X.1 were exhibited. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motorcycle by its rider, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,59,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 10. Heard Sri Muttevi Muralikrishna, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 11. Sri Muttevi Muralikrishna, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that even as per Ex.A.2 charge sheet the rider of the crime motorcycle is not having valid and effective driving license to ride the same, as such, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants; that the Tribunal failed to consider the same and prays to allow the appeal. 12. Sri Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded that the claimants are entitled for compensation against the owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle and awarded compensation; that the appellant is failed to prove that the 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No.2 is sustained in the eye of law?” 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident and involvement of crime motorcycle in the incident. It is also undisputed fact that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident and involvement of crime motorcycle in the incident. It is also undisputed fact that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. The only contention raised by the insurer is that the 1st respondent, who was rider of the crime motorcycle by the time of incident is not having valid and effective driving license to ride the same and thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 16. To fortify the same, the insurer relied upon the testimony of R.W.2 and contents of Ex.A.2 charge sheet. The testimony of R.W.2 shows that the 1st respondent is not having driving license as per the verification of record in the office of Road Transport Authority at Chirala. It is settled law that the 1st respondent can obtain driving license from other than the place of Chirala by furnishing relevant proofs. Thereby, the testimony of R.W.2, who is R.T.A. official at Chirala is of not much useful to prove the said contention. 17. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that Ex.A.2 charge sheet is not an authenticated proof to come to a conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle is not having valid driving license. Thereby, the insurer did not produce substantial material before the Tribunal to prove his contention that the rider of the crime motorcycle is not having valid driving license by the time of incident. 18. The Tribunal after evaluating all the material available on record rightly came to the conclusion that it is difficult to say that the 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident merely basing on the testimony of R.W.1 and contents of Ex.A.2 charge sheet. 19. It is needless to say that the appellant/insurer did not urge any grounds regarding the calculations made by the Tribunal as well quantum of compensation awarded, thereby, this Court need not interfere with the said conclusions arrived by the Tribunal. 20. Thereby, viewing of any angle, this Court does not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. 20. Thereby, viewing of any angle, this Court does not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.