JUDGMENT :

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been preferred by the claimant being a minor represented by her next friend and guardian-cum-father, against the Award dated 11.11.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.P. No. 141 of 2004, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3........

(a) The facts leading to prefer this appeal, briefly stated, are that, S.R. Sravani was a bright young girl and was leading a normal life like any other child. Unfortunately on 10.05.2003 at about 10.00 a.m. when the petitioner/claimant was about to cross the road in front of the shop of Rajamma in Gownipalli Village on Madanapalle - B. Kothakota road, the RTC bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-2390 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant and as a result of the said accident, the petitioner/claimant sustained crush injury to her both the legs. Immediately, the petitioner/claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Madanapalle, and from there to S.V.R.R. Government General Hospital, Tirupati for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing No. AP-10-Z-2390, by its driver and based on the F.I.R. lodged by G. Chennappa, who is a third party and eyewitness to the accident and resident of Kummarapalle Village, B. Kothakota Police registered a case in Crime No. 45 of 2003 under Section 338 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver for having committed the offences punishable under Section 338 IPC and Section 134 (A&B) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(b) The petitioner/claimant thereupon filed a claim petition through her next friend, guardian-cum-father S.R. Srihari under Section 166(1) of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and it was also pleaded that the guardian had spent a huge amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards her medical expenses and other expenses for the injuries caused to the minor child. It was also pleaded that the petitioner/claimant is unable to carry on with the work as before, and the injured could not gain normal health and ultimately she sustained permanent disability affecting her future prospects. It was also pleaded that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing No. AP-10-Z-2390 and claimed compensation on account of the crush injuries to her both the legs in the said road accident and she sustained permanent physical disability of 80%. She being a minor, through her father, filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent.

(c) The respondent-APSRTC appeared through its counsel and filed a written statement contending inter-alia in which the mode and manner of the accident were denied. It was pleaded that the accident did not happen due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing No. AP-10-Z-2390, and in fact, the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner/injured, as she made an attempt to cross the road suddenly at the relevant time. It was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, speculative, and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(d) Based on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-2390 involved resulting in injuries to the petitioner S.R. Sravani @ Sreevani?

(2) Whethe