JUDGMENT : Heard Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for respondents/claimants. 2. This appeal is directed by the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam, against the order dated 01.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1072/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 4. The claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Challa Narasimhulu (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 09.06.2011 near Anandapuram village. 5. The case of the claimants is that they are dependants on the deceased, who was working as a motor worker at Rama Talkies Centre, Visakhapatnam, and earning Rs.9,000/- per month; on the fateful day i.e., on 09.06.2011 morning the deceased was crossing National High Way 5 road at about 11.00 a.m. at the place of accident; the trailer bearing No.NL 01G 5068 came in a rash and negligent manner from Madhurawada side and dashed the deceased; the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot; police registered a case in Cr.No.71/2011 against the driver of the offending vehicle; the deceased was aged 36 years and maintaining family; due to death of deceased, the dependants lost of their livelihood; hence, the petition. 6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. The 2nd respondent/appellant i.e., Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having fake driving licence at the time of accident; as it was not issued by the concerned D.T.O.; therefore, the owner has violated the terms of the insurance policy; hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the death of Challa Narasimhulu occurred in a road accident that occurred on 09.06.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. on N.H.Road, Kallivaipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer bearing Registration No.NL1G 5068? 8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the death of Challa Narasimhulu occurred in a road accident that occurred on 09.06.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. on N.H.Road, Kallivaipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer bearing Registration No.NL1G 5068? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W-1; one eye witness was examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, its employee was examined as R.W-1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation entitled by the claimants at Rs.7,60,000/- and held that the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 11. The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the order and decree of the learned Tribunal, on the ground that the evidence on record would establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding fake driving licence at the time of accident, and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation amount. 12. Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for appellant would submit that the appellant/Insurance Company placed Ex.B-2 letter issued by the Transport Office establishing that the licence standing in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle is fake driving licence, and therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal is erroneous. 13. The learned counsel for respondents/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded just compensation considering the evidence placed by the claimants with regard to the income of the deceased, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under : 1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 15. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under : 1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 15. POINT No.1: The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Insurance Company filed Ex.B-2 letter said to be issued by the transport authorities. The learned Tribunal observed that no official from DTO, Gowhathi, (Registration and Licensing) was examined to prove the contents of the said letter, and in the absence of evidence to prove the latter, it cannot be relied on, to accept the case of the Insurance Company. 16. It is the case of the insurance company that the letter was issued from the office of the DTO, Gowhathi. The evidence of R.W-1 would show that the Insurance Company appointed an Investigator and he collected Ex.B-2. But, the Insurance Company did not examine the said Investigator. The Insurance Company also did not examine any official from D.T.O., Gowhathi (Registration and Licensing), to prove the contents of the said latter. In the absence of evidence to prove the contents of Ex.B-2 letter, it will not have any probative value, by mere marking of the document. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 17. The deceased was working as coolie (kalasi) in Visakhapatnam, which is an urban area, and one of the big cities in Andhra Pradesh State. The learned Tribunal fixed the income of deceased notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month, considering his age as 40 years. In that view of the matter, considering period of accident, age of deceased, place and occupation of deceased, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal on the aspect of quantum of income of deceased notionally fixed by the learned Tribunal. 18. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 18. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, the point is answered. 19. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, by confirming the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 01.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1072/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.