JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 29.02.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 109 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,49,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the minor petitioner, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred to in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 08.01.2009 while the petitioner along with her grandmother was going to her house after school hours, by the offending bus bearing No. KA-20A-4578 belonging to the 1st respondent, which met with an accident at Kokanti cross on Kadiri - Madanapalle main road, under the jurisdiction of Tanakallu Police Station. The father of the petitioner spent nearly a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical treatment.

4. The facts of the case show that on 08.01.2009 at about 04.00 p.m. while the petitioner along with her grandmother was proceeding to her house after school hours, on the left side of the road, at that time the offending Bus bearing No. KA-20A-4578, which was coming from Kadiri, driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries to her legs, head and spinal cord. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to Area Hospital, Madanapalle, and from there she was shifted to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, for better treatment and she was treated there as inpatient and inspite of best treatment provided to her, she developed paralysis due to head injury. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident and she was studying L.K.G. in Little Flower English Medium School, Kokanti cross. Tanakallu Police registered a case against the driver of the offending bus, who was under the employment of 1st respondent at the time of accident. Hence, the 1st respondent is vicariously liable and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending bus is contractually liable to compensate the petitioner to a tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus, nature of injuries, period of treatment, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that at present the petitioner is attending all her duties normally, the injuries sustained by the petitioner did not constitute any partial or permanent disability. The petitioner furnished incorrect particulars to have wrongful gain. The accident was occurred due to the act of the petitioner and her grandmother. The 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy in handing over the offending bus to its driver and the liability of the 2nd respondent is strictly governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the policy. The offending bus was plying without having valid route permit at the time of accident, as such, insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No. KA-20A-4578 involved resulting in the injuries to the petitioner by name Y. Renuka?

2. Whether the peti