JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:

1. Respondent No.1 in M.V.O.Pn.No.210 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.09.2011, filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant. The learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against a claim made for Rs.1,00,000/-, however, fixing the liability on the appellant alone, who is the owner-cum-driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 16 S 9830 (for short “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the financier and Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle is claimed to have been insured.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the claimant” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant:

4. The claimant is aged '53' and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a milk vendor. On the fateful day i.e. 29.02.2008 at about 11:30 A.M., when she was standing near Ranga Statue at Goswami Poultry, opposite side to Chintaguntapalem, Krishna District, for the purpose of attending a marriage function, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed. As a result, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She was shifted to the hospital. On complaint, a case in Crime No.34 of 2008 registered. She suffered injuries and disability incurred medical expenditure of Rs.20,000/- and she has undergone operation. Hence, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. All the respondents are liable.

Case of Respondent No.1:

5. The age, occupation and income of the claimant and the material particulars of the accident are all incorrect. He is not the driver of the tractor at the relevant time.

Case of Respondent No.2 / financier:

6. The petition is not maintainable against finance company and deserves dismissal on the ground of misjoinder. There is no legal accountability for the Respondent No.2 towards the claimant and that there is no cause of action against Respondent No.2 / financier. Respondent No.1 applied for finance facility from Respondent No.2 and on hypothecation and an entry in the C-book, the finance facility was made available. The financier has no control over crime vehicle. The offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.3. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is not liable for anything.

Case of Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:

7. The age, occupation, income of the claimant, correct insurance and driving licence particulars are not placed. The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence, injuries, effect of the injuries and absence of her contributory negligence in occurrence of accident. The claim is excessive.

Findings of the learned MACT:

8(i). The evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-MVI report and Ex.A8-charge sheet are sufficient to hold that the negligence of respondent No.1,owner-cum- driver of the tractor, is the cause for the accident. Documents viz. Ex.A2-wound certificate, Ex.A6-bunch of medical bills, Ex.A7-X-ray films and Exs.C1 and C2- X-ray films and case sheet, along with the evidence of P.W.2 / Dr. C. Sai Prasad, indicate the treatment taken by the claimant.

(ii). In the light of evidence, the claimant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards fracture injury, Rs.4,000/- towards other simple injury, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,800/- towards medical expenditure. Rs.1,200/- towards extra nourishment and transport and Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings for three months. In all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.60,000/-.

(iii). The Insurance Company contended that the cover note is not issued by the Respondent No.3