JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 28.08.2014, by the claimant, in M.V.O.P. No. 154 of 2013, where under, the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Guntur (“Tribunal” for short), as against the claim of the petitioner to award the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.05.2012, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- directing that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and that the 2nd respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of two (2) months and after deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount immediately.

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 in the M.V.O.P. No. 154 of 2013 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that:

(i) The petitioner is the resident of Srinagar, Guntur. She is doing coolie work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. She is suffering from polio to her right leg and she is a handicapped. On 07.05.2012, she along with her brother-in-law and her son went to Kothapet for the purpose of pledging T.V., for her family necessities and after returning by walk when they reached near Mahalakshmamma Temple, Kothapet, at about 4.15 pm., a car bearing No. AP-07-AM-9786 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) which was coming from their back side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, hit the petitioner and she fell down on the road and the car ran over her right leg. Therefore, she received a fracture injury to her right leg. Immediately, she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur and after first aid, she was discharged on the same day. On the next day i.e. on 08.05.2012, she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur. The doctors treated fracture of right leg and discharged her on 09.05.2012 and the doctors advised her to take treatment as outpatient.

(ii) The petitioner gave a report to Kothapet Police Station on 09.05.2012 and Kothapet Police registered it as a case in Cr. No. 222/2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 337 IPC. The petitioner is aged about 40 years and she was hale and healthy. She is suffering with pain due to the accident. The disability caused to the petitioner is permanent. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioner and the contention in substance is that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license and the insured had committed the breach of terms of insurance policy. The injuries received by the petitioner are simple in nature. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations mentioned in the petition, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

(1) Whether the petitioner sustained simple injuries only and so, the compensation claimed is excessive?

(2) Whether the driver of 1st respondent vehicle has no valid and effective driving license?

(3) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2.

8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, made findings that the 1st respondent has valid driving license and tha