JUDGMENT : The appellant herein is the injured filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree dated 30.06.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1358 of 2012 by the M.A.C.T-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, (in short “learned tribunal’) granting compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 12% per annum for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident that occurred on 17.08.2012. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads. 2. The appellant filed claim petition under Sections 140, 141 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest against the respondents for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the Motor Vehicle accident. The brief facts of the claim application is that on 17.08.2012 at about 8.30 p.m by walking and when she reached near the transformer, Atmakur Village, the driver of the car bearing No. AP 09 BC 5971 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant, thereby sustained injuries and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur for treatment. The Mangalagiri Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 167 of 2012. The petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident and she was doing Manson work and earning Rs. 3,300/- per month. On account of injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she lost her future earning capacity in view of her disability. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 4. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company filed written statement denying the age, income and the avocation of the appellant and also involvement of the car and inter-alia contending that the 1st respondent is not a real owner of the vehicle and also he is not a real policy holder. There is negligence on the part of the appellant. Further the appellant sustained minor injuries and that the claim made by her is highly excessive and exorbitant and requested to dismiss the petition. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration : 1. Whether the accident arose on account of User of the vehicle CAR bearing No. AP 03 BC 5971? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. During the trial, the appellant herself was examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 marked Exs.A1 to A5. Whether the accident arose on account of User of the vehicle CAR bearing No. AP 03 BC 5971? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. During the trial, the appellant herself was examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of 2nd respondent, no oral evidence adduced and no document was marked. 7. Learned tribunal, after hearing on both sides and also considering the oral and documentary evidence on their behalf, awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of realization. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount into learned tribunal within two months from the date of award. Assailing the same the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Heard Mr. Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting the amount as claimed under the head of future earnings due to the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident and granted very low amount towards grievous injury and granted Rs. 15,000/- instead of awarding Rs. 50,000/- and also granted only Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of awarding Rs. 30,000/-. Further the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PW-2 and taken into consideration of 15% permanent disability. Therefore the learned tribunal failed to assess the quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is one more surgery to be conducted for removal of implants, hence the petitioner also again incur further expenditure, which is not taken into consideration by the learned tribunal. Therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 10. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposed to allow the appeal as the learned tribunal rightly assessed the value of the damages and passed award and that there is no error in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the record. 12. When the petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, it is the duty of the appellant to prove that she sustained injuries which reduced her future earning capacity creating any permanent disability. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the record. 12. When the petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, it is the duty of the appellant to prove that she sustained injuries which reduced her future earning capacity creating any permanent disability. But here, the appellant sustained only simple injuries as per Wound Certificate i.e Ex.A3. The Doctor, who treated the appellant has examined as PW-2 stated that there is a fracture shaft of left femur open restriction cannot implants were done as per X-ray. Further found swelling and deformity of left thigh and there are implants inside. Further stated that one more surgery to be conducted for removal of implants and there will be some difficult to her to attend her works and the she had 15% disability, for which he did not give any certificate. Further the petitioner has also not been produced any medical certificate issued by the Medical Board to show her disability. By taking into consideration of said aspects, the learned tribunal held that the appellant is not entitled to claim any compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. Therefore no amount is granted under the head of future earning capacity, but granted towards attending extra nourishment of Rs. 10,000/-. 13. As per the material available on record including the oral evidence and documentary evidence the learned Tribunal granted Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and sufferance and the petitioner has not produced any other medical bills. However, she was treated in Government Hospital. 14. The appellant claimed compensation against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Though the 2nd respondent contended that the 1st respondent is not a real owner of the vehicle and he is not a real policy holder. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the driver of the car has no valid driving license. So also, the learned tribunal has not mentioned about the applicability of the policy and how the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation, in the absence of aforesaid reasons, therefore the impugned order is not in accordance with law. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned tribunal has dealt the issue in proper perspective and held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 15. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned tribunal has dealt the issue in proper perspective and held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 15. Since learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent did not dispute the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the same warrants no interference. 16. In view of the foregoing reasons and a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well considered order by taking into consideration all the aspects. Therefore, there is no impropriety or illegality in the order of the learned tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.