Judgment : Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P. No.988 of 1999 dated 19-08-2003 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowing the O.P. in part awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/-to respondent No.1 – claimant as against her claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appellant – Oriental Insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal. 2. Appellant herein is the Insurance Company, which is insurer of the autorickshaw belonging to respondent No.2 herein in which respondent No.1 herein – claimant was stated to be travelling at the time of accident in question. 3. As the claimant is a minor, she is being represented by her mother Smt. Veerasaram Rukma @ Kummari Rukma. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. 5. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is as under: (a) On 30-04-1999, while the claimant, who was a minor girl aged 6 years, was travelling along with her mother in the auto-rickshaw bearing No.AP25 – T – 7118 being driven by its driver from Bodhan towards Chandoor Village, at about 2-00 pm, when the auto-rickshaw reached the outskirts of Minarpally and Sangam village, driver of the auto-rickshaw drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the autorickshaw turned turtle, as a result, the claimant sustained fracture to her both hands, legs, and multiple grievous injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bodhan, where she was treated as inpatient. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. (b) Respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are owner of the auto-rickshaw and its insurer respectively, filed their counters separately denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP-25-T-7118 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove her case, claimant No.1 got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 report was marked. 8. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove her case, claimant No.1 got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 report was marked. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record and relying on the evidence of PW.1 came to the conclusion that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw belonging to respondent No.2 and accordingly relying on the evidence of PW.2 – Orthopaedic Surgeon, who opined that the claimant sustained 25% permanent disability of post traumatic stiffness of both the knee and wrist and there are restricted movements and pain, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards permanent disability, Rs.5,000/-towards medicines and Rs.5,000/-towards past and future pain and sufferings, totalling to Rs.60,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 10. Now the main contention of the Insurance Company -appellant is that the claimant was not involved in the accident in question on the alleged day and did not suffer any injuries, as such, awarding compensation to the claimant does not arise, however the Tribunal erroneously awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/-in the absence of any documentary evidence showing involvement of the claimant in the accident. It is its further case that though the name of the claimant was not mentioned in any of the police reports i.e. Exs.A-1 and A-2, FIR and chargesheet respectively, the Tribunal relying on Ex.A-9 disability certificate issued by PW.2, a local doctor, in his private capacity, erroneously awarded a huge compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant denies the case of the Insurance Company and supports the judgment impugned contending that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident in question that occurred on 30-04-1999 at the outskirts of Minarpally and Sangam village due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw belonging to respondent No.1 and as the claimant sustained 25% permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a reasonable compensation of Rs.60,000/-, which does not suffer from any error or infirmity requiring interference of this Court with the impugned judgment. His further contention is that the claimant’s mother, who is representing the claimant, was also involved in the same accident and she was also awarded compensation by the Tribunal. 12. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal? 13. Coming to the question of not mentioning the name of the claimant in the police reports, it is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the name of the claimant is not mentioned in Ex.A-1 FIR. However, in the complaint appended to Ex.A-1 FIR lodged by the mother and natural guardian of the claimant and also in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant, her daughter, who is none other than the claimant herein, and other inmates of the auto-rickshaw sustained injuries in the accident in question. Further, in Ex.A-2 chargesheet, in the first page itself, the name of the claimant is clearly mentioned stating that the complainant’s daughter Baby Kummari Rani also sustained injuries. In view of the above, it is evident that the claimant was involved in the accident and she suffered injuries in the accident in question along with her mother. Hence, non-mentioning the name of the claimant in Ex.A-1 FIR is not fatal to the case of the claimant. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that the name of the claimant is not mentioned in any of the police reports i.e. Exs.A-1 and A-2 FIR and chargesheet respectively is incorrect, false and baseless. 14. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, in the claim petition itself, it is clearly stated that the claimant sustained fracture of both hands and legs and multiple grievous injuries on the head and various parts of the body and she was treated by the Duty Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Bodhan and other private doctors. It is also her claim that she incurred expenditure of more than Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and still she is taking treatment from private hospitals. Ex.A-6 issued by a private medical practitioner shows that the claimant sustained fracture of both legs fibula and both hands wrist and also chest injury. It also shows that she was treated in that hospital from 07-05-1999 to 25-05-1999 as inpatient. Ex.A-6 issued by a private medical practitioner shows that the claimant sustained fracture of both legs fibula and both hands wrist and also chest injury. It also shows that she was treated in that hospital from 07-05-1999 to 25-05-1999 as inpatient. However, now the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that no weight can be given to the evidence of PW.2, who is a local doctor and who admitted that he issued disability certificate in his private capacity. Further, it is also the case of the Insurance Company that the claimant was not involved in the accident, but the same was proved false and baseless as found supra. Accordingly, it is found that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident in question. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the claimant has not suffered any injuries and the permanent disability, as deposed by the medical witness PW.2 in his evidence and Ex.A-9 disability certificate, due to the accident in question. Further, PW.2 is a Civil Assistant Surgeon working at Government POINT: Hospital, Nizamabad Head Quarters and he issued the disability certificate in the capacity of District Medical Officer, Nizamabad. In view of the same, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A-9 disability certificate issued by him though he has not treated the claimant. Further, as seen from the record, the claimant, who was a minor girl aged about 6 years at the time of accident, sustained fracture of both legs and hands and as per Ex.A-9 disability certificate she sustained 25% partial permanent disability for post traumatic stiffness of both the knee and wrist and there is pain and restricted movements, which she has to suffer during her entire life and the same would affect her bright future and marriage prospects too. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly relying on the evidence of PW.2, Ex.A-9 disability certificate and considering the age of the claimant, who is a minor girl at the time of accident, awarded a reasonable compensation of Rs.60,000/-to the claimant, which does not suffer from any error or infirmity. The point is accordingly answered. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, and, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The point is accordingly answered. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, and, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.