(1.) The appellant / second respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.292 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Thoothukudi.
(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-
(3.) The second respondent, in his counter has submitted that the deceased had not worked as a mechanic and that there is no coverage, provided for mechanic or assistants as per the policy of insurance. It was submitted that the petitioners have to prove that the driver of the mini-bus had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and also had the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. It was submitted that the clam was excessive.