The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the nature of injuries and disability, and the liability of the Insurance Company in case of non-compliance with vehicle regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is directed by the claimant against the order and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.794/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The claimant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.04.2009 near Alluvari Kallalu, Vizianagaram District.

5. The case of the claimant is that she is a minor, aged 11 years, boarded an auto bearing No. AP 35T 5316 as a passenger to go to her village; the auto reached a place near Alluvari Kallalu at about 03.45 p.m.; the 1st respondent was driving the auto; he drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner; as a result, the auto turned turtle; the claimant fell down on the road and sustained injuries on her left and other parts of the body; she was shifted to Sri Sai Super Speciality Hospital, Vizianagaram; the doctor found fracture to left femur and conducted operation; the claimant was studying 5th class at the material point in time; on account of the injuries, she lost her academic career; she cannot walk or move, as she did prior to the accident, as she permanently disabled; police registered a case in Cr.No.48/2009 on the file of Jami P.S.; the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the 1st respondent/driver; the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle; the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle.

6. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; liability to pay compensation, contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, but it was not having valid fitness certificate to ply on the road at the material point in time, and therefore, owner violated the conditions of the insurance policy; Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner to pay compensation; The claim made by the claimant is excessive.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the pleaded accident was occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (auto) bearing No. AP 35 T 5316 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, father of the claimant was examined as P.W-1. Claimant was examined as P.W-2 and the doctor, who treated the claimant was examined as P.W-3 and nine documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 respectively. On behalf of the 3rd respondent / Insurance Company, its official was examined as R.W-1 and an official from R.T.O. was examined as R.W-2 and three documents were marked as Ex.B-1, Exs.X-3 and X-4 respectively.

10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the 1st respondent, and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. This finding was not challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle or Insurance Company.

11. When coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed by the clamant and the doctor, held that the claimant sustained fracture of left femur, an