JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. This M.A.C.M.A. is directed by the claimant against the award, dated 12.01.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 614 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, (“Tribunal” for short), where under, the learned Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner to a tune of Rs.3,70,000/- towards the compensation for the injuries received by her in a Motor Vehicle accident, granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, the claimant filed the present M.A.C.M.A.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner/claimant in the claim petition according to the petition averments before the Tribunal, in brief, is that:

(i) The petitioner is resident of Kasapeta Village, L. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram. She was aged 24 years by the date of accident. She was hale and healthy by the date of accident. She was earning Rs.4,000/- by working as a Teacher and conducting tuitions to the students. On 11.06.2007, while the petitioner was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 E 5230 as a pillion rider and reached near Gangubudi Junction at about 07.30 a.m., the respondent No. 1 driver of the auto bearing No. AP 35 U 3196 (“offending vehicle” for short) dashed the motor cycle from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as a result, the motor cycle was thrown and dashed to a tree and the rider of the same died on the spot and the petitioner fell down and received injuries all over her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Doctors took X-ray and found fractures on right thigh both tibia and fibula of left leg and injuries on right temporal region of scalp and right foot, and right eye brow. The petitioner cannot walk long distances, she cannot squat properly and she cannot stand long time. The petitioner is unable to do any work due to the injuries sustained by her in the above accident and lost her income. She suffered much pain and metal agony and spent huge amounts towards cost of medicines, transport to hospital and extra nourishment.

(ii) The above accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1. The Station House Officer, L. Kota Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 40 of 2007 under Section 338, 304-A of I.P.C. against the respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3. So, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the claim.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim and remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. It is the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, who contested the claim of the claimant. Respondent No. 3 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and disputed the age, income, avocation and the manner of the accident as alleged. Respondent No. 3 put the petitioner to strict proof of the averments which she made in the claim petition. The further contention of the respondent No. 3 is that the petitioner has to prove that the offending vehicle was insured with the company and that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license and the vehicle was in fit condition. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner and Insurer of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 E 5230.

6. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, what is the quantum of amount he