IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1767 of 2005. Date:26.10.2009. Between:- Saikala and another ..Appellants And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehidipatnam Depot, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.10.2003 passed in O.P.No.481 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the respondents/A.P.S.R.T.C. 3. Perused the records. 4. The appellants filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of deceased M.R.Krishna, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.07.1997. Appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the son of the deceased. According to them, on that date, while the deceased, who was employee of the Corporation, was returning home after attending duty, at about 8.15 p.m., while he was standing at the Mehdipatnam Bus Stop, a bus bearing No.AP 10Z 1381 came and when the deceased was about to board, the bus driver suddenly started the bus and driven it in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased resulting in severe injuries. The deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment, on 21.07.1997, he died. A case was registered in Crime No.147 of 1997 by Humayunnagar Police Station. According to the claimants, the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,673/-. 5. The respondents-Corporation filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1-driver of the bus was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants have failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Accordingly, the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, ‘the Act’) towards no fault liability. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 8. P.W.1–the wife, P.W.2–the son and P.W.3–the brother-in- law of the deceased were admittedly not eye witnesses to the accident. The claimants have not examined any person to speak to the manner in which the accident occurred though the accident is said to have taken place at a bus stop and several persons witnessed it. Ex.A-1-Certified copy of the First Information Report was registered only on the basis of the complaint given by P.W.2, who himself went there only after receiving intimation about the accident. No statement was recorded from the deceased by the police while he was alive. As the claimants have not examined any person to speak about the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the testimony of R.W.1, the driver of the vehicle, went unchallenged. After due investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet under Ex.A-4. It is not disputed that the criminal case ended in acquittal vide Ex.B-2-certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.112 of 1999. Thus, there is absolutely, no iota of evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants have failed to establish their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which is passed on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th October, 2009 AMD