The burden of proof on the claimant to establish injuries sustained in a road accident, the standard of proof required, and the liability of the insurance company in case of negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.294 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

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 claimant filed a Claim Petition under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 towards compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 4/10/2007.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: On 4/10/2007 at about 11.15 a.m. the petitioner and two other passengers boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 31Y 5519, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', to go to Yelamanchili and when the auto reached near Cashewnut Factory, Narasingabilli, NH-5 road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes, resulting which the petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries, hence the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 towards compensation.

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

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

i. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 4/10/2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 31 Y 5519 by its driver as pleaded by petitioner?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and 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 petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 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 claimant miserably failed to establish the injuries sustained by her in a road accident and accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount.

9. Heard Smt Jayanthi S.C.Sekhar, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt S.Pranathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Tribunal justified in holding that the claimant failed to prove that she received injuries in the alleged accident dtd. 4/10/2007, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto?

2. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

The claimant, who was examined as PW1 testified that on 4/10/2007 at about 11.15 a.m. she along with other passengers boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 31Y 5519 to go to Yelamanchili and when the auto reached near Cashewnut Factory, Narasingabilli, NH-5 road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes, resulting which, she sustained injuries. The petitioner also relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined T.Bhaskara Rao, retired Assistant Sub Inspector of police as PW2. PW2 supported the case of the petitioner. He testified that basing on the report given by PW1, he registered a case against the driver of offending vehicle and after completion of investigation, he