The burden of proof for negligence lies with the party alleging it, and failure to provide counter-evidence results in upholding the Tribunal's compensation award.

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.07.2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - IV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2015, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under:

a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.10.2012. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident is that on 21.10.2012 at 11.30 PM he boarded Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0110 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘crime vehicle’) at Vijayawada to go to Hyderabad.

b) When the bus reached outskirts of pamanugunda Village at about 4.15 AM i.e., on the next day early morning the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, caused it over turned by the side of the road. Due to which the petitioner and other inmates of the bus sustained multiple injuries and fractures. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Narketpally for treatment, wherein he got first aid treatment and later shifted to Sentini Hospital Private Limited, Vijayawada for better treatment. Thereafter, he took follow up treatment at Krishna Institution of Medical Sciences, Secunderabad as he sustained Hemipersis on right side and post traumatic central cord syndrome with quadriparesis and other injuries all over the body.

c) A case in Crime No.227 of 2012 was registered for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle. The petitioner is a retired employee aged about 63 years at the time of the accident. Even after discharge also the petitioner is attending for medical treatment regularly and he spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs.1,50,000/- towards physiotherapy treatment. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition including the involvement of the crime vehicle, negligence on the part of the driver. It is mainly contended that the claim of the petitioner under different heads is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0110?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. It is pertinent to note that in the said accident, apart from the respondent herein, other injured in the same accident also filed claim petition vide MVOP No.49 of 2015. As seen from the impugned order, since both the cases are arising out of the same accident, both the cases were clubbed vide orders in I.A.No.22 of 2020 and a common trial was conducted in both the cases. So far as the present Appeal is concerned, the claimant/respondent herein was examined as PW2 apart from examining PWs 3 to 6 and relying on Exs.A7 to A14. On the other hand, there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf