JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (II FTC), Nalgonda (for short “the trial Court”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 08.02.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the petitioner was going along with her husband on a Splendor motor cycle bearing No.Ap-24-AB- 0283 from Nalgonda to Narketpally and while on the way, at around 3:45 p.m., when they reached near Renuka Yellamma Temple near Madhava Yadavally Village, a tractor driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner parallelly, due to which the injured fell down from the motor bike and the tractor wheel ran over her legs, as a result of which she sustained fracture injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, where she took first aid and then she was referred to Kamineni Hospital, L.B Nagar, where she underwent inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure. Thus, she sought a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 4) The respondent No.1 was set ex-parte. 5) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the injured- petitioner. Further, they contended that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on part of the husband of the petitioner who was riding the motor bike and that there was no negligence of the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886. They further contended that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP-24_UB-RT- 6886? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 10 and got marked Exs.C1 to C17. 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 10 and got marked Exs.C1 to C17. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.21,02,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has passed an erroneous judgment which is beyond the weight of evidence. He further argued that there was a delay of two days in filing the complaint after the accident and that the said delay was not explained properly. He further argued that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company. It is specifically contended by the appellant counsel that their policy was issued while the tractor was under temporary registration and that the tractor did not possess valid and effective insurance policy as on the date of the accident. He therefore, prayed to absolve the insurance company from its liability. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads towards compensation, which is not proper. He therefore prayed to allow their appeal by setting aside the order and decree of the Tribunal. 11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the income of the petitioner is proved by Ex.C13 and C14 and that the trial Court has rightly granted the compensation by considering the evidence on record. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886 had a valid and subsisting policy as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? 4. Whether the tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886 had a valid and subsisting policy as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? 4. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the policy was not valid as on the date of the accident. In support of their case, they got examined RW1 and 2. RW1 has admitted that the petitioner is a third party to the Insurance Policy and the reason for delay is mentioned in the charge sheet that on account of the treatment of the injured, the delay has occurred. He also admitted that as per the charge sheet, the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident. b) A perusal of Ex.B1 and B2 reveals that Ex.B1/Policy is issued to the tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886. The year of manufacturing is shown as 2013, the Chassis Number is ZJBG01284GD, Engine Number is ZJBG01284 and the policy is valid from 20.12.2013 to 19.12.2014. c) A perusal of Ex.B2 reveals the temporary registration mark of the vehicle as AP-24UB-TR6886 and the Engine Number mentioned is ZJBG01284, Chassis Number mentioned is ZJBG01284GD, which are the same as mentioned in Ex.B1. Thus, it is safely held that the policy issued covers the risk of the crime vehicle i.e., the Tractor bearing temporary registration No.AP- 24UB-TR6886. Therefore, it is held that the crime vehicle that is the tractor had valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- d) The another contention of the appellant counsel is that the Tribunal has granted huge amount under various heads and granted exorbitant amount of compensation to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that she underwent major operations as she suffered fracture injuries. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- d) The another contention of the appellant counsel is that the Tribunal has granted huge amount under various heads and granted exorbitant amount of compensation to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that she underwent major operations as she suffered fracture injuries. The Medico-Legal Certificate issued under Ex.C3 reveals that the petitioner sustained five injuries 1) Abrasion over the left side of fore head 2) Abrasion over the left cheek 3) Crush injury to left hand exposing underlying muscles; Tenderness; and bones, 4) Crush injury over the left inguinal region exposing subcutaneous feet and 5) Swelling, deformity and tenderness over the left thigh which are grievous in nature. The Discharge Summary under Ex.C4 reveals the nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner for the fracture injuries sustained by her. The patient was treated with Wound Debridement + External Fixator Pelvis +Ender’s nailing Left femur + WD and POP slab B/E for left hand under general anesthesia on 9.2.14 (Orthopedic procedure) + Wound debridement + Split skin graft taken for storage (General Surgery & Plastic surgeon) on 09.02.2014. Post operatively shifted to SICU. At the time of discharge she was advised with medication and also physiotherapy and she was advised to stand with walker support, only partial weight bearing over left lower limb till further advise. The period of treatment is also disclosed from Ex.C4, that she was admitted on 08.02.2014 and discharged on 19.03.2014. Thus, it discloses that she underwent treatment for about 1 ½ months as an inpatient in Kamineni Hospitals. e) Another Discharge Summary is at Ex.C5 which discloses that the petitioner was again admitted on 10.09.2014 and was discharged on 11.09.2014. During her stay at the hospital, she was treated with Regular colomostomy care and antiseptic dressing and other supportive medicine. The petitioner was advised with medication at the time of discharge. f) Ex.C6 is another Discharge Summary revealing that the petitioner got admitted on 24.10.2014 and discharged on 30.10.2014, wherein she was treated with “Post Operative Findings: 6-7% Post Raw Area Left Thigh and Posterior, Lateral and Medial Aspects with Granulation. Under SA, Granulation (un healthy) scrapped. Haemostasis secured, SSG harvested from right thigh, Raw area resurfaced with SSG Dressing applied.” g) PW3/Dr. Roshan Jaiswal, PW4/Dr. T. Venkateshwarlu, PW5/Dr. Y. Srinivas and PW6/Dr. Under SA, Granulation (un healthy) scrapped. Haemostasis secured, SSG harvested from right thigh, Raw area resurfaced with SSG Dressing applied.” g) PW3/Dr. Roshan Jaiswal, PW4/Dr. T. Venkateshwarlu, PW5/Dr. Y. Srinivas and PW6/Dr. L. Vikram are the doctors working at Kamineni Hospital who deposed that they have treated the petitioner. h) Ex.C7 is the Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board which discloses that the petitioner sustained 60% disability. i) PW8 is the Civil Surgeon at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda. He is the member of District Medical Board who has issued Ex.C7. His evidence reveals that the petitioner was suffering with 60% disability due to sequel of injury to left lower limb with ankle loss, left knee joint and injury to right lower limb with foot drop and sequel of injury to left hand with loss of grip. j) Ex.C8 is the Bunch of Medical Bills to an extent of Rs.15,00,000/-. Another Bill under Ex.B9 is filed to an extent of Rs.68,000/- for physiotherapy. Thus, it reveals that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized thrice as inpatient when the accident occurred in February 2014, she underwent treatment till October 2014 in different spells which involves lot of pain and suffering. The Tribunal has considered the said aspects and has awarded the compensation. k) PW4 is the plastic surgeon, he too has spoken with regard to the treatment that was given to the petitioner. He deposed with regard to the plastic surgery to her left thigh and skin grafting done on 09.02.2014 and with regard to issuance of Ex.C5, C6 and C8 by their hospital. l) The evidence of PW5 who is a General Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital also revealed the details of the surgeries that were performed on the petitioner and that he was a part of the team of doctors consisting of Orthopedic Surgeon, Plastic Surgeon and Gynecologist along with him and that all of them together have treated the petitioner performing the surgeries to cure the injuries sustained by the petitioner. He stated that their hospital has issued Ex.C17. m) PW6/Dr. L. Vikram Kumar who is the RMO in Kamineni Hospitals, he deposed that Ex.C3-Medico-Legal Certificate is issued by their hospital, Ex.C4 to C6 are the Discharge Summaries issued by their hospital and C8 is the Bunch of Medical Bills and prescriptions. He stated that their hospital has issued Ex.C17. m) PW6/Dr. L. Vikram Kumar who is the RMO in Kamineni Hospitals, he deposed that Ex.C3-Medico-Legal Certificate is issued by their hospital, Ex.C4 to C6 are the Discharge Summaries issued by their hospital and C8 is the Bunch of Medical Bills and prescriptions. n) Thus, the evidence of PW3 to PW6 reveals the nature of treatment that was undergone by the petitioner at Kamineni Hospital as an inpatient. It also reveals that the injuries were grievous in nature for which, the doctors had to perform series of surgeries, including plastic surgery. o) PW7 is the Gynecologist of Sai Balaji Hospital and her evidence reveals that the petitioner was coming to their hospital for regular dressing for a period of one year and that she was admitted as inpatient on 07.05.2017 due to the complaint of IVth Degree Uterine Prologs and that she underwent surgery for Vaginal prestructimay with pelvic flora repair and she was discharged on 11.05.2017. The said surgery was done to cure her injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.C10 is the Discharge Summary and lab reports issued by their hospital. Ex.C9 is the bill worth Rs.50,000/- issued by their hospital. p) PW9 is examined as an eye witness to the accident. His evidence reveals that while he was going on his motor bike on 08.02.2014, when he reached Madhava Yadavally Village, near Renuka Yellamma Temple, the injured-petitioner was going along with her husband towards Narketpally, while a Tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed to the motor bike from behind, due to which the petitioner and her husband fell down and sustained injuries. Nothing material was elicited during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. q) PW10-G. Venkat Ram Reddy, his evidence reveals that the petitioner’s husband has taken his flat on rent, since his wife Laxmi sustained severe injuries and fractures and was under regular medical treatment. Thus, they resided in his flat for a rent of Rs.10,000/- and Ex.C12 is the Rental Agreement. In his cross examination, it is elicited that PW10 has not produced any document before the Tribunal to show that he is the owner of Flat No.403/Vinayaka Heavens, Telephone Colony, Kothapet, mentioned under Ex.C12. Thus, the same is not taken into consideration. Thus, they resided in his flat for a rent of Rs.10,000/- and Ex.C12 is the Rental Agreement. In his cross examination, it is elicited that PW10 has not produced any document before the Tribunal to show that he is the owner of Flat No.403/Vinayaka Heavens, Telephone Colony, Kothapet, mentioned under Ex.C12. Thus, the same is not taken into consideration. r) PW2/S. Navitha who is a physiotherapist and her evidence reveals that the petitioner required physiotherapy during the phase of recovery and that she used to take sessions twice daily and used to charge an amount of Rs.1,500/- per day and that she received Rs.13,05,000/- from the patient. Ex.C11 is the Bunch of physiotherapy bills (15) in number for a total amount of Rs.13,05,000/-. In her cross examination it is elicited that Ex.C11 is not in the form of bill, but it is issued on her Letter Pad. However, the treatment of physiotherapy is suggested in the discharge summaries issued by the Kamineni Hospital. Therefore, the petitioner having sustained grievous injuries and having undergone so many surgeries in the hospital must have required physiotherapy for a considerable period of time as revealed from the nature of treatment underwent by her. Thus, Ex.C11 are also taken into consideration. s) The Tribunal has considered all the components including pain and suffering, medical expenses. For pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable. Towards medical expenses the petitioner has filed bills to an extent of Rs.16,55,000/-, but since the claimants has claimed only Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal has restricted the same to Rs.15,00,000/- and has awarded the said amount. Since, the petitioner underwent treatment for about eight months as in patient and further was advised with physiotherapy, she could have required another four months to recover. Thus, for over a period of one year or so, she must have required extra nourishment and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment awarded by the Tribunal is also justified. t) The record reveals that the petitioner was bed ridden for about a period of eight months and thus, attendant charges of Rs.50,000/- is held to be proper. With regard to permanent disability, the evidence of PW10 reveals that the petitioner sustained 60% disability as revealed from Ex.C7. t) The record reveals that the petitioner was bed ridden for about a period of eight months and thus, attendant charges of Rs.50,000/- is held to be proper. With regard to permanent disability, the evidence of PW10 reveals that the petitioner sustained 60% disability as revealed from Ex.C7. u) The Tribunal has considered the gravity of injuries sustained by the petitioner and that the petitioner would have difficulty in performing her household duties, as she sustained loss of ankle, right limb. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed 60% to be the functional disability and loss of earnings. Since, she is housewife, her notional income is taken as Rs.3,000/- on a reasonable hypothesis. The compensation for continued permanent disability is assessed as Rs.3,02,400/- (36,000 x 60/100) i.e., annual income x 60% x multiplier). The record reveals that she was under pain and suffering for a long period and was also admitted thrice in the hospitals for so many months in different spells. Therefore, the Tribunal has on the whole awarded loss of earnings to the extent of Rs.50,000/- which appears to be justified. Therefore, it is opined that the award passed the Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence, the same is up held. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2: In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 22.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (II FTC), Nalgonda. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.