JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. This M.A.C.M.A. is directed by the claimant against the award, dated 12.01.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 614 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, (“Tribunal” for short), where under, the learned Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner to a tune of Rs.3,70,000/- towards the compensation for the injuries received by her in a Motor Vehicle accident, granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, the claimant filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioner/claimant in the claim petition according to the petition averments before the Tribunal, in brief, is that: (i) The petitioner is resident of Kasapeta Village, L. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram. She was aged 24 years by the date of accident. She was hale and healthy by the date of accident. She was earning Rs.4,000/- by working as a Teacher and conducting tuitions to the students. On 11.06.2007, while the petitioner was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 E 5230 as a pillion rider and reached near Gangubudi Junction at about 07.30 a.m., the respondent No. 1 driver of the auto bearing No. AP 35 U 3196 (“offending vehicle” for short) dashed the motor cycle from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as a result, the motor cycle was thrown and dashed to a tree and the rider of the same died on the spot and the petitioner fell down and received injuries all over her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Doctors took X-ray and found fractures on right thigh both tibia and fibula of left leg and injuries on right temporal region of scalp and right foot, and right eye brow. The petitioner cannot walk long distances, she cannot squat properly and she cannot stand long time. The petitioner is unable to do any work due to the injuries sustained by her in the above accident and lost her income. She suffered much pain and metal agony and spent huge amounts towards cost of medicines, transport to hospital and extra nourishment. The petitioner cannot walk long distances, she cannot squat properly and she cannot stand long time. The petitioner is unable to do any work due to the injuries sustained by her in the above accident and lost her income. She suffered much pain and metal agony and spent huge amounts towards cost of medicines, transport to hospital and extra nourishment. (ii) The above accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1. The Station House Officer, L. Kota Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 40 of 2007 under Section 338, 304-A of I.P.C. against the respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3. So, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the claim. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim and remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. It is the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, who contested the claim of the claimant. Respondent No. 3 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and disputed the age, income, avocation and the manner of the accident as alleged. Respondent No. 3 put the petitioner to strict proof of the averments which she made in the claim petition. The further contention of the respondent No. 3 is that the petitioner has to prove that the offending vehicle was insured with the company and that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license and the vehicle was in fit condition. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner and Insurer of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 E 5230. 6. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, what is the quantum of amount he is entitled to? (3) To what relief? 7. 6. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, what is the quantum of amount he is entitled to? (3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, petitioner examined herself examined as PW-1 and further examined PW-2 the medical officer who treated her and further PW-3 who issued so called disability certificate. On behalf of the petitioner, Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 40 of 2007 of L .Kota Police Station. Ex.A2 is the copy of wound certificate. Ex.A3 is the copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A4 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5 is Bunch of medical bills for Rs.1,76,814/-. Ex.A6 is discharge summary. Ex.A7 is the disability certificate issued by PW-2. Ex.A8 is Latest X-ray. Ex.A.9 is disability certificate issued by Medical Board, Vizianagaram and Ex.X1 is case sheet. 8. The contesting respondent examined RW.1 and further examined the Record Assistant in the Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram as RW.2. On behalf of the respondents, Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Ex.B1 is the policy copy. Ex.B2 is Authorization letter. Ex.B3 is B-Register extract of the crime vehicle and Ex.B4 is Driving license extract of respondent No. 1. 9. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed award with a direction to the respondents jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization along with proportionate costs directing the respondent No. 3 to deposit the amount within one (01) month and on such deposit petitioner was permitted to withdraw 20% of the compensation and the rest of the compensation shall be kept in Karur Vysya Bank, Vizianagaram for a period of three (3) years. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, the present M.A.C.M.A. has been filed by the appellant. 10. Now, in deciding this M.A.C.M.A. the point for determination is as follows: (1) Whether the award, dated 12.01.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 614 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram is sustainable under law and facts and the compensation awarded to the claimant is just and reasonable under the circumstances? Point No. 1: 11. As seen from the evidence of PW-1 who is the petitioner, she put forth the facts in accordance with the pleadings. As seen from the evidence of PW-2, he spoke of the treatment given to PW-1. As seen from the evidence of PW-3, he spoke of the so called issuance of the disability certificate. 12. It is to be noted that insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle, there is no cross-objection filed. 13. So, the scope of this appeal is to decide as to whether the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 14. Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of the PW-1 and PW-3 coupled with the documentary evidence pertaining to the disability sustained by the petitioner and declined to grant any compensation under the head of permanent disability partial in nature. The Tribunal did not consider the medical expenses as claimed by the petitioner and without proper reasons, declined to consider the amount of Rs.74,500/- and the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure as against the claim of Rs.1,76,814/-. Even the compensation under the other heads was also not reasonable. With the above contentions, he prays this Court to interfere with the award of the Tribunal so as to enhance the compensation. 15. Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel representing Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that there is no need or necessity to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 16. In spite of the opportunity given, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3. 17. 15. Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel representing Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that there is no need or necessity to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 16. In spite of the opportunity given, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3. 17. It is to be noted that insofar as the evidence of PW-1 that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle is concerned, it has support from Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 40 of 2007 and copy of charge sheet under Ex.A4. Considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the above, the Tribunal gave findings that the petitioner was able to prove that she received grievous injuries and simple injuries in the Motor Vehicle accident, which was occurred on the account of rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 and in this regard these findings are not sought to be disturbed by filing any cross-objection. 18. Under the circumstances, the scope of this M.A.C.M.A is admittedly regarding the quantum of compensation. There is no dispute as evident from the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A2-wound certificate that the petitioner received two (02) grievous injuries and three (03) simple injuries during the course of accident. She took treatment from 11.06.2007 to 27.08.2007 for a period of two (02) months fifteen (15) days. In this regard, Ex.X1-case sheet supports the case of the claimant. 19. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal did not consider the disability as evident from Ex.A7 and Ex.A9. 20. It is to be noted that it is a case where the petitioner did not whisper anything that she sustained partial and permanent disability of 40%. Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 were not filed along with the petition. On the other hand, Ex.X1-case sheet, even it did not whisper about any disability. At the time of discharge of the petitioner from the hospital, she was in good condition. PW-2 the medical officer, who treated PW-1 did not speak of any disability. It was the PW-3 who spoke of so called disability. According to PW-3, he examined the petitioner on 11.10.2010. Here, the date of accident was on 11.06.2007. At the time of discharge of the petitioner from the hospital, she was in good condition. PW-2 the medical officer, who treated PW-1 did not speak of any disability. It was the PW-3 who spoke of so called disability. According to PW-3, he examined the petitioner on 11.10.2010. Here, the date of accident was on 11.06.2007. So admittedly, after about three (03) years after the accident, PW-3 claimed to have examined the PW-1 and issued a disability certificate. It is to be noted that there was no loss of limb and there was no amputation. Ex.X1 reveals that the petitioner-PW-1 was discharged from the hospital in a good condition. The petitioner received only two (02) grievous injuries and three (03) simple injuries, for which she was treated and she was discharged from the hospital. Even the petitioner did not produce any piece of document to show that subsequent to the discharge, whether she took any further treatment so as to get the fracture united. So, in my considered view, the Tribunal rightly held that there was no permanent disability partial in nature occurred to petitioner on account of the Motor Vehicle accident. In my considered view, the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any compensation under the head of disability. 21. Now, coming to the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal did not consider the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner under Ex.A5-bunch of medical bills to a tune of Rs.1,76,814/-. This Court would like to make it clear that the contesting respondent did not bring in any evidence so as to dispute the medical expenditure under Ex.A5. Admittedly according to Ex.A5-bunch of medical bills, the petitioner separately calculated the medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.1,76,814/-. But the Tribunal made a findings that the petitioner calculated the amounts by including the payments towards advance and some bills appears to have written one and the same date and that expenditure appears to have shown on higher side. It is to be noted that when the petitioner calculated the medical expenditure as Rs.1,76,814/-, the Tribunal restricted the claim towards the purchase of medicines and treatment to Rs.1,00,000/-. Such restriction made by the Tribunal was not with any calculations. If Ex.A5 medical expenditure is considered, there is no dispute that there are some bills of same date, but the bills numbers are of different. Such restriction made by the Tribunal was not with any calculations. If Ex.A5 medical expenditure is considered, there is no dispute that there are some bills of same date, but the bills numbers are of different. Apart from this, under the Ex.A5 medical expenditure, the petitioner shown an amount of Rs.74,500/- the consolidated amount for bed charges, nursing charges etc., This amount was not shown in any other documents i.e. medical bills under Ex.A5. So, it appears that the Tribunal without proper scrutiny disallowed the medical expenditure Rs.74,500/-. If Ex.A5 is considered carefully, it appears that petitioner did not miscalculate the medical expenditure. The petitioner claimed medical expenditure under Ex.A5-bunch of medical bills and the bills are totally different. In my considered view the Tribunal without there being proper reason, restricted the medical expenditure from that of Rs.1,74,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. In my considered the Tribunal ought to have granted the medical expenditure under Ex.A5 as it was not brought in evidence that the petitioner claimed medical expenditure excessively. Hence, medical expenditure should be to a tune of Rs.1,74,500/-. 22. With regard to the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- each towards the grievous injury and further Rs.3,000/- each towards the simple injury. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. Considering the same, it cannot be held that compensation under the head of grievous injury and simple injury is lesser on side. The Tribunal further rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the transport to hospital and attendant charges and further Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment and further Rs.15,000/-for pain and suffering. 23. Apart from this, the Tribunal duly considered the period of treatment and awarded Rs.16,000/- towards loss of earnings. Having regard to the above, except restricting the claim under the medical expenditure, the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal was on reasonable basis. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the medical expenditure restricted by the tribunal was not on the proper basis as such appellant/petitioner is entitled to a medical expenditure of Rs.1,74,500/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal. To the above extent, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 24. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,74,500/- with proportionate costs by holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay jointly and severally. To the above extent, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 24. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,74,500/- with proportionate costs by holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay jointly and severally. The respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the difference amount of Rs.74,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, within one month from the date of this order and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire difference amount. 25. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.