THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.39 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.2187 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad, dated 12.03.2007. The appellant claimed to be travelling by APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-790 on 05.06.2002 at about 5.30 a.m when another APSRTC Bus dashed against the bus, in which the appellant was travelling, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the appellant and other passengers in the bus. The appellant/claimant claimed to have suffered fractures on the right arm, right shoulder, skull and ribs and to have been treated at Tirumala Hospital, Nizamabad, as an in-patient and to have undergone surgeries. She claimed that she is entitled to compensation of Rs.85,20,000/-, but restricted her claim only to Rs.4,00,000/-. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation sued through its officers contested the claim denying the accident and denying the claimant suffering any injuries. The Tribunal framed issues on responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant for the compensation and examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding the accident to be due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-1461. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the injured P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet not contradicted by any evidence for the respondents in this regard. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal refused to grant any compensation due to the absence of proof of the documents issued by a private doctor, which are Exs.A.3 to A.5, relying on the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v. Mohd.Khaja Rasool Sayyed[1], though the injured P.W.1 herself deposed in detail about the treatment undergone and the consequences of the injuries, which she suffered. The dismissal of the claim petition without costs on that ground led the injured claimant to approach this Court with this appeal contending that the documentary evidence relating the treatment and the injuries not contradicted by any evidence for the respondents ought to have been accepted and the claim should not have been rejected on a technical ground. Heard Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is seen from the pleadings of the parties as extracted in the impugned award that the respondents to the claim denied the accident or involvement of the injured petitioner in the accident or the petitioner being injured in any such accident. If so, the burden of proving not only responsibility for the accident and her involvement in the accident, but also the injuries and their consequences suffered due to the accident lies on the injured petitioner. In United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v. Mohd.Khaja Rasool Sayyed (supra) the learned Judge had decided that the medical certificates and medical bills produced by the claimants are required to be proved in the manner provided under the Evidence Act, 1872 and mere marking of any documents through the claimants will not amount to proof of the said documents. The decision still holds the field. Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned for the appellant seeks to rely on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Charan Singh v. G.Vittal Reddy[2], to contradict the decision relied on by the Tribunal. The decision of the Division Bench, in which incidentally the learned counsel for the present appellant was the counsel for one of the appellants therein, was in respect of an incident in which it was not in dispute that the accident had taken place and the workmen employed on the lorries received several injuries. In that case apart from the injured workmen, the doctor, who issued the disability certificates, was not examined. It was under such circumstances the order of remand by a learned Single Judge on the ground of non- examination of the doctor, who examined the workmen, was reversed. The decision, therefore, may not be of straight application in a case like the present one where the accident and the injures are in dispute and where there was total absence of any medical evidence about the injuries or the consequences except through the documents marked by the injured claimant herself. Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that in the event of the Court not agreeing with his contentions, at least an opportunity may be afforded to the injured claimant to have such required medical evidence produced before the Tribunal taking into account that it was ignorance of the lady that resulted in the absence of such production earlier. The injuries, which the claimant sustained, included at least three fractures. The suffering which she had undergone and the consequences of the injuries, which must have been left on her person are serious enough to consider her request with all the sympathy it deserves even at this belated stage and this is a fit case for exercise of the judicial discretion in favour of remanding the matter for a fresh opportunity to the claimant, which cannot be considered unreasonable and unjust. However, while remanding the matter, it is also to be noted that the respondents herein have not challenged the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident in any manner by way of cross objections or appeal. The said finding must be deemed to have become final. The consequential vicarious liability of the Corporation to justly compensate the injured claimant also cannot be doubted and need not be reopened. What should be left to be determined on remand is only the quantum of compensation to which the injured petitioner will be entitled to depending on the proof of the injuries she sustained and the consequences she suffered. Therefore, the award dated 12.03.2007 in O.P.No.2187 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad is set aside and the said O.P.No.2187 of 2002 is remanded for fresh determination on issue No.2 framed by the Tribunal therein on merits in accordance with law after affording every reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce such further evidence they may desire to produce in this regard and for consequential determination of O.P.No.2187 of 2002. The appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:07.09.2010 va [1] 2003(5) ALD 162 [2] 2003(4) ALD 183 (DB)