JUDGMENT Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. M.F.A. No. 383/85 is by the owner of the vehicle and M.F.A. No. 431/85 is by the injured in a motor accident. The unfortunate event happened on 17th March 1981 at -12.30 p.m. at Edacochin-Thoppumpady road. The injured, who is the appellant in M.F.A. No. 431/85 was walking along the road. According to him, the bus which was coming from the opposite direction to him hit the appellant and caused serious injuries to his right eye and right hand. This happened only because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver filed objection to the petition before the tribunal. In the objection, the case taken by the respondents is that the bus was stationary at that time and the appellant injured came from a narrow path and slipped and when he slipped, he fell on the rear part of the bus and the injuries were occasioned under the above circumstances. Appellant in M.F.A. No. 431/85 claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,000. 2. The tribunal considered the evidence in the case. Naturally the tribunal has to consider two points in the case, viz., whether the driver of the vehicle was negligent and also the question of quantum of damages. In regard to the question of negligence, the tribunal found that the driver was negligent at the same time the pedestrian the injured also was found to be negligent. Appeal, M.F.A. No. 431/85 is directed against the finding of the tribunal that the appellant injured was negligent and the appeal, M.F.A. No. 383/85 is against the finding that the driver was negligent. So we have to consider the question whether the finding of the tribunal that both driver and the injured were negligent is correct or not. 3. The appellant in M.F.A. No. 431/85 was examined as a witness. He said that he was walking along the road and he was walking on the side of the road arid because of the high speed of the bus and since there was no blowing of the horn, the accident occurred. A directly opposite case has been pleaded by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 383/85 wherein they have stated that the bus was stationary. A directly opposite case has been pleaded by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 383/85 wherein they have stated that the bus was stationary. If this fact pleaded by the appellant in M.F.A. No.383/85 is correct, certainly it is possible for this court to say that the driver of the vehicle was not negligent. It has to be remembered that the accident is attributed due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. If it is found that the vehicle was stationary, there is no question of negligence in the matter of driving the vehicle. The question whether the vehicle was stationary or not is a fact in these circumstances very crucial and this crucial fact has been highlighted by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 383/85. When they have made such a plea, they ought to have considered that they have taken up the responsibility of establishing the plea, but even the driver was not examined in this case. According to the driver and the owner of the vehicle, since there was some block, several vehicles were remaining stationary. So it would have been easier for the appellant in M.F.A. No. 383/85 to prove this fact. 4. Counsel for the appellant in M.F.A. No. 383/85 submitted that the burden to show that the driver was negligent is on the claimant and that he has not discharged that burden. To say, a burden to prove a fact has been discharged or not is something which has to be considered in the light of the various circumstances that emerge in the case. It may largely depend upon the evidence. The entire circumstances revealed in the case have to be taken into account. The pleadings have to be scanned. Since the question of negligence is also a question of fact, it must be considered on the principle of balance of probabilities. 5. Here two definite cases have been pleaded. One is because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the accident occurred. That is the case of the injured. The other case is that the bus was stationary and the driver was not driving the vehicle at all. The injured under oath deposed before the tribunal what he has pleaded. There is no evidence at all for the plea taken by the appellant in M. F. A. No. 383/85. That is the case of the injured. The other case is that the bus was stationary and the driver was not driving the vehicle at all. The injured under oath deposed before the tribunal what he has pleaded. There is no evidence at all for the plea taken by the appellant in M. F. A. No. 383/85. As we said earlier, this plea could have been proved without much difficulty. At least the driver could have said before the tribunal that the bus was remaining stationary. This has not been done in this case. So it is difficult for us to say that the injured was also negligent and that is also one of the causes for the accident. The finding of the tribunal that the injured also is liable for contributory negligence and so he is not entitled to full compensation cannot be accepted. 6. When once we find that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the injured, we have to allow the appeal filed by the injured, viz., M. F. A. No. 431/85, since there is no serious dispute as regards the quantum of damages and naturally the appeal filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, viz., M.F. A. No. 383/ 85 has to be dismissed. We do so. In the result, M. F. A. No. 431/85 is allowed and M. F. A. No. 383/85 is dismissed. No order as to costs.