UNION OF INDIA Vs. KORLAPATI SRINIVASA SIVARAMA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging that a lorry belonging to the appellant, being driven in a rash and negligentmanner, dashed against his scooter resulting in grievous injuries to him, respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the appellant and examined himself as P.W.I and the Doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.A-1 on his behalf. Appellant filed a counter contending that the lorry belonging to it, which allegedly caused the accident involving the respondent, was in the workshop on the fateful day and so it could not have caused the accident and hence it is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent, and examined three witnesses as R.Ws.l to 3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3 on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the appellant awarded Rs.55,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Hence, this appeal by the respondent before the Tribunal

(2.) The points for consideration in this appeal are:

(3.) The Tribunal did not discuss the evidence of P.W.I and the documentary evidence adduced by him, but in para-12 of its award, the Tribunal held that the burden of proving that the vehicle did not ply on the date of accident is on the appellant. So, it is clear that the Tribunal was under the assumption that the burden of prpof to establish that its vehicle did not Cruse the accident is on the appellant, obviously, without keeping in view Section 102 of Evidence Act, which lavs down that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Since the appellant denied the accident, if both appellant and respondent did not adduce evidence, the claim of the respondent has to be dismissed. So, it is clear that the burden to prove that the vehicle belonging to the appellant caused the accident is squarely on the respondent.