JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in M.V.O.P.No.475 of 2010 dated 24.02.2016 wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation against the claim of a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and exonerated R3 insurance company for payment of compensation to the appellant on the ground that there is a violation of conditions of policy by R2 by entrusting the vehicle to R1, who had no valid driving licence on the date of incident.

2. The appellant and respondents hereinafter referred to as „petitioner‟ and „respondents‟ as arrayed before Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 26.07.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. while she was selling fruits near Canal bund, Bus stand Center, Bhattiprolu village, a lorry bearing No.AP 26U 4129 driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner came from Chilakaluripeta town side proceeding towards Repalle town side, dashed her as a result of which she sustained multiple grievous injuries and then immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Tenali for treatment and thereafter she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment and from there she was shifted to Trust hospital, Vijayawada, where she spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, she became permanently disabled and bedridden, unable to do any work which she was doing prior to the accident. A report lodged before Station House Officer, Battiprolu Town Police Station, a criminal case registered against R1 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. The petitioner submits that prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy, earning Rs.3,000/- per month being a fruit vendor, due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident she is not in a position to do any work. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- on various heads.

4. The first respondent – driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte, not chosen to contest the case before the Tribunal. The second respondent – owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement admitting the accident, denying the manner in which it was occurred. It is the contention of R2 that R1 who was driving the lorry on seeing the petitioner came from his opposite direction on the road in a zigzag manner applied breaks, but the petitioner who has confused, lost balance and fell on the ground without even coming into contact with the lorry. The third respondent – insurance company filed written statement stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of R1. They further stated that claim of the petitioner is highly excessive.

They pray to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident dated 26.07.2009 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16 U

4129 by 1st respondent-driver?

2. What was the age and income of the petitioner at the time of accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On behalf of R3 – insurance company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined, Ex.B1, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation exonerating the liability of R3 – insurance company on the