JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. As the issue involved in both the M.A.C.M.A’s are one and the same and the Advocate in both the M.A.C.M.A’s are also one and the same, both the appeals are being disposed of with a common judgment. M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2013 Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited, Sri Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. This appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited, challenging the Order and Decree dated 30.11.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.199 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). M.A.C.M.A.No.2026 of 2016 Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3/National Insurance Company Limited, Sri G. Purushothama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. This appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent No.3/National Insurance Company Limited, challenging the Order and Decree dated 18.11.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience, taking the M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2013 as a leading case. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 11.05.2005, one Sri Pydi Satyanarayana, hereafter referred to as “deceased” travelling in a truck bearing No. AP30/T 7474 along with the family members and when reached near Sanapalavanipeta Village on N.H.5 road, respondent No.1 drove the lorry bearing No.AP 02/V.5024, which was coming towards Ichapuram in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without taking minimum care and dashed against the truck. As a result, several persons sustained injuries and the deceased died on the spot; police registered FIR, investigated the case and lodged a Report against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in the road accident. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 in M.A.C.M.A. No.2026 of 2016 herein sustained injuries. 5. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3/owner of the truck did not choose to contest the case before the learned Tribunal. 6. Respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited denied the allegations of the claimant and contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck as it was overloaded and that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective license at the time of accident; therefore, the respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. The other Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.8/ United India Insurance Company Limited contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and not due to negligence of the driver of the truck. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP 02/V5024 resulting in death of deceased Pydi Satyanarayana, aged 65 years? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 9. The claimant to establish her case, she examined herself as P.W.1 and another person as P.W.2 and got marked asEx. A1 to Ex. A6. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined, nor document was marked. 10. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and awarded a sum of Rs.82,000/- with an interest at 7.5% per annum and made theowner and insurer i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the compensation amount and ‘Dismissed’ the claim of the petitioners against respondent No.3/owner of the truck and respondent No.4/United India Insurance Company Limited. 11. 11. The respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited i.e., Insurer of the offending vehicle filed the appeal challenging the Order and Decree mainly on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the truck was overloaded with passengers and therefore, it was the cause for the accident and thereby, came to an erroneous finding that the accident was occurred due to rash driving of the offending vehicle. 12. Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limitedwould submit that the Tribunal in its Order made an observation that at the material point in time there were large number of passengers travelling in the truck and having observed the same, failed to make a note to the fact that it has contributed to the accident. 13. Learned counsel for the claimant and respondent No.4/United India Insurance Company Limited would argue that the evidence placed before the Tribunal establish that the accident was occurred due to rash driving of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to say that as truck was overloaded with passengers the accident was occurred and in that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 14. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam passed in M.V.O.P.No.199 of 2006 dated 30.11.2009 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 15. POINT NO.1: Apparently, appeal against respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP02/V 5024 and owner of the truck bearing registration No. AP30/T 7474 was ‘Dismissed for default’ on 30.01.2013 and the appeal lies only against respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.4/Insurance Company. 16. The claimant was examined as P.W.1. Admittedly, she was the injured person in the truck, travelling at the time of accident. Her evidence would disclose that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No.AP 02/V 5024. 17. It is an admitted fact that police registered FIR under Ex. A1, investigated the case and laid Report (Charge Sheet) vide Ex. A5. The investigation of the police would disclose that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry. 17. It is an admitted fact that police registered FIR under Ex. A1, investigated the case and laid Report (Charge Sheet) vide Ex. A5. The investigation of the police would disclose that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited did not elicit anything in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to probable their plea that as the truck was overloaded with passengers, it contributed to the accident. 18. There is no contra evidence placed on the record by the respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited to probable their plea. In the absence of any evidence to support the contention of the respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 19. POINT NO.2: In the light of finding on point No.1, both the appeals in M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2013 and 2026 of 2016 are liable to be ‘Dismissed’. 20. IN THE RESULT, both the Appeals are ‘Dismissed,’ by confirming the Order and Decree dated 30.11.2009 and 18.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.199 of 2006 and 143 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.