IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the standard of preponderance of probabilities to determine negligence in Motor Accident Compensation cases, and the distinction between the standard of proof in Criminal cases and compensation claims.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 30/11/2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1327 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of claimants, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants claiming the compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.21,22,000.00 towards compensation on account of death of the deceased Sadaram Surya Venkata Apparao, in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 3/7/2007.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

On 3/7/2007, the first petitioner along with her husband Sadaram Surya Venkata Apparao, hereinafter referred to as 'deceased', and their two daughters, were proceeding on their motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AP 7228, ridden by the deceased and they were returning after attending a dinner at the house of the friend of the deceased in 104 Area, when they reached opposite Anand Jewellers, near Shirdi Saibaba Temple at Subashnagar at about 11.00 p.m., all of a sudden one four wheel push cart containing lemons, came across their motor cycle, then the deceased tried his level best to avoid collusion, as a result, the deceased and their second daughter fell down towards Southern side of the divider on the road leading from Kancharapalem to Marripalem, whereas the first petitioner and her elder daughter fell down towards Northern side of the road, at that time, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bus bearing No.AP 10Z 3780, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', belonging to second respondent, driven by first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, ran over the heads of the deceased and their second daughter, resulting which both of them died on the spot itself.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the deceased Viz., Sadaram Surya Venkata Apparao, S/o.Surya Rao, died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 10Z 3780 (APSRTC Bus) driven by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the claimants failed to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount.

9. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the claimants relied on the testimony of PW1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and first petitioner herein. In her evidence, she r