THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1814 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the claimant against the order 28-02-2005 of the District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.411 of 2000 whereunder for the injuries received by the petitioner/claimant in a motor accident, a claim was made for Rs.2 lakhs and the lower Tribunal has granted compensation only Rs.75,000/-. The responsibility was fixed against the 1st respondent, who was the owner of the vehicle. The allegations in the claim petition go to show that the petitioner is a minor girl and studying I Class and that on 31-10-2000 at about 5.00 P.M when the petitioner was returning by the side of the road along with her mother from their fields, at that time, the tempo bearing No.AP-03-U-306 belonging to the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner is said to have received multiple injuries and also amputation. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the Tempo and the petitioner received multiple injuries. The grievance of the appellant is that the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is too low and it has ignored the fact that there was a crush injury to the left leg, below left knee involving 2/3rd of the leg muscle and bones crushed into multiple pieces. The lower Tribunal found that the Doctor who treated the injured was not examined and no medical record is produced to prove the exact treatment given to the petitioner. The lower court has seen the photo Ex.A-4 corresponding negative showing the amputation of leg up to knee level. The Tribunal felt that though there is no medical evidence, with all the sympathies for the minor petitioner, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted as pain and suffering and towards medical expenditure and other expenses, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted. The fact that the petitioner suffered permanent total disability due to the amputation of the leg up to knee level cannot be ignored. But, unfortunately, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards permanent disability. Evidently, the petitioner was a minor girl of tender years and was only studying I Class by the date of incident and if that being so, there cannot be any doubt about the fact that the injuries received by her cast total permanent disability through out her life. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel ends of justice would meet if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards total permanent disability due to the amputation of the leg which was accepted by the lower court. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is increased from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,75,000/-. The lower Tribunal has fastened the liability only against the 1st respondent though the 3rd respondent claims to have purchased the vehicle not knowing the incident. But, the fact remains that the incident has happened on 31-10-2000 and the purchase of the vehicle by the 3rd respondent is on 02- 01-2001. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the transfer was affected within three months after the date of incident. It cannot be denied that the claimant can proceed against the vehicle which was involved for realisation of the amount by attachment though there may not be any personal decree against the 3rd respondent. It is futile to argue for the 3rd respondent that no claim was made in the petition. If there is no claim made against the 3rd respondent, there is no need for the 3rd respondent to be added as a party to the proceedings. Therefore, dismissal of the application against the 3rd respondent is not proper. The 3rd respondent, in case he pays the money, is entitled to recover the same either from the financier or from the 1st respondent (transferor of the vehicle) but, however, in this proceedings the liability of the 3rd respondent cannot be excluded. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and sum of Rs.1,75,000/- is granted as compensation in stead of Rs.75,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal and the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation. However, it is made clear that in case the 3rd respondent makes any amount, he can realise the same from the 1st respondent and if permissible from the 2nd respondent also. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 14-09-2011 TSNR