JUDGMENT :

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 22.04.2009 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 600 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge), Guntur (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.05.2006 at noon hours the petitioner/injured was travelling in the offending auto bearing No. AP 7 TT 8428 along with other passengers to go to Lingapuram, Gavinivaripalem Panchayat and the said auto was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle at cross road near Little Angel Public School. Due to applying sudden brakes by seeing another motorcycle, the said auto turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner/injured fell on the ground and sustained injuries all over the body. She was treated in the Government Hospital, Bapatla and later in Government General Hospital, Guntur. After discharge, she underwent treatment in a private hospital at Guntur:

(ii) Based on the statement of the complainant namely Ch. Venkata Ratnam, who was travelling in the offending vehicle on the date of accident, a case in Crime No. 63 of 2006 was registered by the Town Police, Bapatla for the offence under Section 337 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC read with Section 134 (a) & (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”).

(iii) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said accident.

(iv) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement contending inter alia that there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.

(v) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the allegations that the petitioner was aged 37 years and that she was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. Further denied that she was getting Rs.100/- per day as a labour and due to sustaining injuries she got permanent disability and spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, it is pleaded that the 1st respondent has not approached the Insurance Company immediately after the accident for settlement of the claim. They have not given information about the accident. It is further averred that the driver of the offending auto did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. There was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. It is further averred that the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability and the claim of the petitioner is exorbitant and excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.

(vi) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No. AP 7 TT 8428?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, payable by whom and to what extent?

(iii) To what relief?

(vii) During the trial, in order to establish her claim, the injured/claimant was examined herself as PW-1 and the Doctor w