JUDGMENT :

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

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1376/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.09.2012.

4. The facts would show that on 11.09.2012 at about 03.30 p.m. while she was proceeding from Ballikurava to Ambadipudi in auto bearing No. AP-27-TT-4227, when it reached Guntupalli main road, the driver of lorry bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and hit the auto, as a result, she sustained injuries, and immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Chilakaluripet and later to Government General Hospital, Guntur. The said accident was reported in Ballikurava Police Station and a case in Cr. No. 86/2012 was registered against the driver of lorry bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and due to the injuries suffered in the accident, she suffered disability, loss of income, pain and suffering. The 1st respondent is owner of lorry bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225, 2nd respondent is insurer and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age and avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving license during accident and the accident took place due to collision of auto and lorry of 1st respondent. The petition is bad for non-impleadment of owner and insurer of auto and the claim of petitioner is excessive, and there is no negligence on the part of driver of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

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

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by vehicle bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1, held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 11.09.2012 out of the user of lorry of 1st respondent, and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs. 28,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.

9. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the order 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1376/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur, on the ground that the Tribunal did not award just compensation inspite of evidence of the doctor, who was examined as PW-2 and deposed about the disability suffered by the claimant and therefore, the Tr