Negligence in motor vehicle accidents necessitates proving contributory acts, and the burden of proof lies with the party alleging it.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

1988, (in short „M.V.Act‟), has been filed by the appellant/APSRTC (in short „Corporation‟), challenging the Award, dated 11.12.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.516 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (in short „the Tribunal).

2. The appellant/Corporation herein is the 1^st respondent, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants and respondent No.4 herein is the 2^nd respondent (driver of the bus) before the Tribunal.

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

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The 1^st petitioner is the wife, 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the sons of one Kale Chinna Ramanaiah (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). On 06.08.2017, while the deceased was going on foot in Badvel town, opposite to Chaitanya college, an RTC bus bearing No.AP04Z0053, which was being driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell on the ground and has sustained grievous injuries.

Thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Badvel and subsequently he was shifted to RIMS, Kadapa and to G.G. Hospital, Kurnool for further treatment. On 10.08.2017, while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries and accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.238 of 2017 against the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, the petitioners/claimants claimed a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- as compensation towards the death of the deceased.

5. While the 2^nd respondent/driver remained ex-parte, the 1^st respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments and further stated that the petitioners have to prove the manner of the accident. It is stated that the deceased crossed the bus in a jig jag manner without observing the bus and that he fell on the ground in a drunken condition. The 2^nd respondent has not driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The claim of the petitioners under various heads are highly excessive and without any basis and that they are not entitled for claiming compensation.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP04 Z 0053?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

8. The Tribunal having observed that the 2^nd respondent has driven the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and having found no supporting evidence on their behalf, fixed the liability jointly and severally against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and awarded Rs.7,20,000/-.

9. Aggrieved by the said liability, the appellant/Corporation preferred this appeal.

10. Heard Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

11. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent/dr