The principle of res ipsa loquitur places the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24. 9. 1992 passed in O. P. No. 103 of 1990 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad.

( 2 ) ). The brief facts of the case are that on 11. 10. 1989 the deceased G. Ganesh aged 20 years along with his friends went to see a movie and as they did not get tickets they boarded the APSRTC bus plying on route no. 107 belonging to Dilsukhnagar bus depot at the RTC cross roads to return to their house by changing the bus at Nalgonda cross roads. At that time, the driver of the bus accelerated the speed in a hurry in a rash and negligent manner without caring to see if all the passengers entered the bus safely or not and suddenly twisted the bus and that the deceased was thrown out of the bus and received grievous injuries. Even though the other passengers shouted to stop the bus, the driver did not stop the bus and he stopped the bus only at Charminar cross roads. The friends of the deceased rushed to the spot and shifted the deceased to the Gandhi Hospital, where he died on 19. 10. 1989. At the time of the accident, the deceased was a commission agent in vegetables at Madannapet vegetable market and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. Therefore, the appellant petitioner who is the mother of the deceased has filed the O. P. claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 80,000 for the untimely death of her son.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed a counter denying the allegation that the bus plying on route No. 107 was accelerated suddenly in a rash and negligent manner and that the deceased was thrown out of the bus due to the alleged reckless driving of the bus. The number of the bus and the name of the driver were not given and the FIR shows that the deceased fell down from the bus at RTC cross roads while boarding the bus due to accidental slip and received head injuries. The driver of the bus No. AAZ 8872 on route No. 107 on 11. 10. 1989 between 2. 30 and 3 p. m. denied that the bus was involved in any accident near RTC cross roads.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal below after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on record held that the death of the deceased was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, but it was caused due to the deceased himself slipping from the bus while boarding the bus, resulting in head injury. PW 1 is the petitioner and she is no other than the mother of the deceased. She is not a direct witness and she stated that her son died in a motor accident about two years and six months back. PW 2 gave evidence only about the earning capacity of the deceased. The direct witness is PW 3 and he stated that himself, the deceased and one Seenu went to see a movie in Sandhya theatre on 11. 10. 1989 and as they did not get the tickets, they boarded the bus at RTC cross roads bus-stop to return to their houses and at the time when the deceased was yet to come inside the bus, suddenly the bus started and the deceased fell down and when the bus was stopped at VST bus-stop, they came to the spot and the police also came there and that the deceased was shifted to the hospital. He further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. But the Tribunal held that PW 3 is a friend of the deceased and so he is interested in giving the evidence like this and that there is no independent evidence to corroborate the same. The Tribunal below had further observed that the accident took place on 11. 10. 1989 and till 19. 10. 1989 on which date the deceased died in the hospital, no report was given to the police. Only on the information given by the hospital authorities, the police registered the case on 19. 10. 1989 in Cr. No. 338 of 1989.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the respondent has not examined the driver of the vehicle, who is the best person to disclose the reason for the occurrence of th