( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the A. P. State road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad ( the Corporation for brevity) against the order of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, tirupathi ( the tribunal for brevity) in ( 2 ) THE claiman by name R. Bhattaiah aged 49 years, an employee of TJrumala Tirupathi devasthanams met with a motor vehicle accident on 29-1-1996 and received fracture to this left leg and multiple injuries all over the body. He underwent treatmentins. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi and Apollo Hospital, madras. Due to the fracture of the left leg there was shortening to an extent of 2". The claimant mentioned in the petition that the accident occurred with an RTC bus while he was walking on a road along with his friend. No crime was registered, therefore, there was no investigation regarding the manner of accident or the vehicle which caused the accident. The driver of the alleged bus was not prosecuted. The accident occurred on 29-1-1996 at bout 5-45 p. m. near Mopeds factory on Tirupathi-Renugunta main road. For the first time after the accident the claimant issued a legal notice to the appellant on 4-12-1996 i. e. , about 10 months after the date of accident claiming compensation for the disabilite suffered by him due to the accident. But, since the appellant did not pay any compensation, the claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation of rs. 3,00,000/- for the disability caused to him due to the injuries received by him in the accident. ( 3 ) THE appellant Corporation being the respondent in the petition denied the accident as alleged by petitioner. The petitioner alleged that an RTC bus bearing Registration no. AP9z 2515 caused the accident whereas the respondent contended that the bus bearing the above registration number belongs to Guntakal Depot of Anantapur district and it was operated on the route guntakal to janardhanapalli on the alleged date of accident and it was not operated to tirupathi on 29-1-1996, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of both parties framed the following issues for trial. ( 4 ) THE tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of both parties framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the petitioner sustained permanent disability on account of the injuries received by him due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus AP 9z 2515? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation and if so, to what amount? By whom? (3) To what relief? ( 5 ) DURING the course of enquiry the petitioner examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-7 and the respondent examined R. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-3. ( 6 ) THE tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by both parties held that the bus mentioned by the petitioner caused the accident to him and that the said accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. The tribunal further held that the petitioner is entitled to rs. 2,09,000/- towards compensation under various heads. ( 7 ) THE respondents Corporation being aggrieved by the order or the tribunal preferred this appeal contending that the tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus bearing no. AP 9z 2515 and as the alleged bus did not ply to Tirupathi on the date of accident, there was no scope for the bus to cause the accident, therefore, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside by holding that the appellant is not responsible to pay any compensation. ( 8 ) IN the light of the pleadings, the evidence and the observations of the tribunal, the following are the points taken up for consideration. (1) Whether the bus of the appellant corporation bearing registration no. AP 9z 2515 was involved in the accident occurred at about 5 p. m on 29-1-1996? (2) Whether the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus bearing no. AP9z 2515? (3) Whether the petitioner-claimant is entitled for any compensation as prayed for? point No. 1: ( 9 ) EX. A-3 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the petitioner to the appellant on 4-12-1996. (2) Whether the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus bearing no. AP9z 2515? (3) Whether the petitioner-claimant is entitled for any compensation as prayed for? point No. 1: ( 9 ) EX. A-3 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the petitioner to the appellant on 4-12-1996. It is the earliest document emanated from the petitioner with the story of accident alleged to have occurred at 5-45 p. m. on 29-1-1996 on Tirupathi-Renugunta road. As per the contents of Ex. A-3- registered notice the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and fracture to his left leg in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 29-1-1996 at 5-45 p. m. on Renugunta- tirupathi road. Due to the accident he was admitted in the hospital at Tirupathi and letter shifted to Apollo Hospital, Madras. The accident was caused by the driver of the bus AP 9z 2515 due to the rashness and negligence of the driver. As the petitioner became unconscious immediately after the accident he could not stop the vehicle and report the matter to the police. It was further mentioned in Ex. A-3 that the petitioner was bedridden for more than eight months and he underwent operations by spending huge money. He continues to have the treatment from Apollo Hospital, Madras even by the date of the registered notice also, therefore, the Advocate requested the Corporation on behalf of the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. ( 10 ) THE Petitioner filed Ex. A-4-postal receipt but did not file any acknowledgment to prove that the notice was received by the managing Director of appellant Corporation. He filed the petition before the tribunal on 9-12-1998 i. e. , about two years after the date of the alleged registered notice. In Column 26 of the petition he mentioned that on 29-1- 1996 at about 5-45 p. m. while he was walking on the left side of the road on Tirupathi- renugunta Main Road near Mopeds Factory, tirupthi the driver of the respondent corporation bus bearing AP 9z 2515 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him resulting in fracture to his left leg and multiple injuries all over the body. He further mentioned that immediately after the accident the bus of the respondent was not stopped and it went away. He further mentioned that immediately after the accident the bus of the respondent was not stopped and it went away. The pedestrians who were passing on the road shifted him to s. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi and later to apollo Hospital, Madras. He further mentioned that after the discharge from the hospital he enquired with the police and came to know that they colluded with the driver of the bus and did not register the case, though he was admitted in S. V. R. R. Goverment General Hospital after the accident as a medico legal case. The petitioner asp. W. l came out with an improved version, which is as follows: on 29-1-1996 at about 5 p. m. I was going by motor cycle on the left side of the road on Tirupathi-Renugunta road. When I reached Mopeds Factory a bus of the respondent bearing No. AP 9z 2515 driven in a rash and negligent manner and high speed came in the opposite direction and hit my motor cycle as a result of which I sustained fracture on left leg, apart from other injuries. I was shifted to S. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi. From there I was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Madras. I was in the Apollo Hospital for three months. After discharge from the hospital I had issued notice to the respondent authorities. Within 24 hours of the accident I was shifted to apollo Hospital, Madras from s. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi. The respondent did not give any reply to my notice. As I was in a hurry to get myself treated I did not lodge any report to police immediately. Subsequent to my return from Apollo Hospital tried to lodge report to the police, but they did not care for it. ( 11 ) IN the cross-examination he further improved the version by saying that at the time of accident he was going from Tirupathi to Renugunta along with his friend radhakrishna on the bullet motorcycle. He made a further improvement in the further cross-examination that the accident took place while himself and his friend were going by walk after keeping the motorcycle by the side. There is a further improvement that the accident took place near the Darga. He conceded that he did not mention the name of his friend in Ex. A-3 notice. He further conceded that he did not mention in Ex. There is a further improvement that the accident took place near the Darga. He conceded that he did not mention the name of his friend in Ex. A-3 notice. He further conceded that he did not mention in Ex. A-3 that the accident took place when himself and his friend were going by walk. There is a further improvement in the cross- examination that he became unconscious two minutes after the accident and in that gap of two minutes he saw the number of the bus which caused the accident and his friend did not receive any injuries. ( 12 ) THE petitioner examined P. W. 2 in support of his version. P. W. 2 by name m. Radhakrishna Murthy is said to be a friend of the petitioner. He stated that at the time of accident the petitioner, one Venkatrayulu and himself were going by walk on the leftside of the road towards Renugunta. The bus of the respondent came in the opposite direction with high speed and hit the petitioner. He sustained fracture of his left leg, apart from other injuries. After the accident, the driver did not stop the bus. On seeing the bus going away he himself noted down the number of the bus. Later venkatrayulu and himself shifted the petitioner to S. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi in an auto and when the doctors stated that the condition of the petitioner was serious, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Madras on the same day. He tried to explain as to why he did not prefer any report to the police by saying that he did not verify whether the hospital authorities intimated about the admission of the petitioner to the police or not. ( 13 ) IN the cross-examination P. W. 2 stated thathe noted down the number of the bus on a slip. He also accompanied the injured to hospital. He did not go inside the hospital along with the petitioner. One Venkatrayulu got the injured admitted in the hospital. He handed, over the slip containing the bus numbers to the petitioner while he was undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital. ( 14 ) THE petitioner in addition to the above oral evidence filed the copy of the relevant entry of the accident register maintained by s. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi, which was marked as Ex. A-6. He handed, over the slip containing the bus numbers to the petitioner while he was undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital. ( 14 ) THE petitioner in addition to the above oral evidence filed the copy of the relevant entry of the accident register maintained by s. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi, which was marked as Ex. A-6. Ex,a-6 discloses that he was taken to the hospital at 7 p. m. on 29-1-1996 brought by one Venkatachalam. lt was mentioned that the police were informed about the accident and the doctor further mentioned in Ex. A-6 that the injured alleged to have met with a road accident on 29-1-1996 at bout 6-30 p. m. at Renugunta near Autonagar. Ex. A-6 do not disclose with that type of vehicle the accident occurred, except that it was a road accident. Had the injured or Venkatachalam who admitted him would have definitely informed the doctor with what vehicle the accident occurred and the doctor would not have failed to mention whether it was a bus accident. ( 15 ) IN the notice covered by Ex. A-3 the petitioner was silent whether he was going on motorcycle or by walk. In the petition he mentioned that the accident occurred while he was going on motorcycle. In evidence he stated that while he was going along with his friend Radhakrishna. The accident occurred. In the cross-examination he did not mention whether anybody was going along with him on the motorcycle. He stated that while he was going along with his friend radhakrishna, the accident occurred. At another stage he further stated that while he was walking along with Radhakrishna and vankatrayulu the accident occured. The improvement in the version of the petitioner is creating any amount of doubt about the manner of accident and the involvement of the RTC bus in the accident. In order to clarify such doubt, I wish to refer the other aspects relating to the accident. ( 16 ) P. W. 1 stated that while he was proceeding on the motorcycle the accident occurred, due to which he fell down on the road and received injuries. In the petition he mentioned that the bus went away without stopping. He did not mention whether he noted the number or not. ( 16 ) P. W. 1 stated that while he was proceeding on the motorcycle the accident occurred, due to which he fell down on the road and received injuries. In the petition he mentioned that the bus went away without stopping. He did not mention whether he noted the number or not. In the evidence he stated that for two minutes after the accident he was conscious and in that two minutes he noted the number of the bus. He did not mention whether he noted the number on any paper or whether he noticed the number and remembered it. If that is so, nothing prevented him to give the number of the bus which caused the accident to the doctor who admitted him and nothing prevented him to ask his people to give a report to the police. In the accident register the doctor mentioned that an intimation was sent to the police, but the petitioner did not choose to summon the station House Officer to prove whether such intimation was received by them, whether any crime was registered, whether they came to the hospital to ascertain further details, whether there was any acknowledgment from the S. H. O. regarding the receipt of the intimation from the doctor. The petitioner also failed to say as to when, for the first time, he informed anybody the number of bus. He could not explain as to why there was delay of 10 months to give a registered notice and also his failure to produce the acknowledgment in proof of service of notice to the Managing Director, A. P. S. R. T. C. The petitioner also did not explain as to why he caused the further delay of two years, after sending the registered notice, in filing the petition. ( 17 ) DURING the course of trial he introduced the story of his friend Radhakrishna accompanying him at the time of accident. Radhakrishna as P. W. 2 stated that immediately after the accident the petitioner became unconscious and he noted the numbers of the bus on a slip and gave it to the petitioner in Apollo Hospital at Madras, but there is no whisper from P. W. 1 whether p. W. 2 gave any slip to him containing the number of thebus which caused the accident. ( 18 ) THE petitioner further stated that one mr. ( 18 ) THE petitioner further stated that one mr. Venka trayudu also accompanied him and radhakrishna in the walk. He did not explain as to why he has gone from Tirupathi to renugunta on motorcycle, whether it is for evening walk or whether it is for any particular work. If so, what was the necessity for him to stop the vehicle and to walk along with other two persons. The petitioner also failed to examine the said Venkatrayudu who is alleged to have accompanied him during his walk. P. W. 2 stated that venkatrayudu and himself admitted the petitioner in the hospital, but curiously the name of one Venkatachalam is finding place in the Accident Register, but not the name of venkatrayudu. P. W. I mentioned in the petition that while going on the motorcycle he met with the accident and on account of receipt of injuries he remained unconscious and the ped estrians who were passing on the road shifted him to the hospital. In the Chief examination he stated that immediately after the accident he was shifted to S. V. R. R. Hospital, Tirupathi, but did not mention as to who shifted him to the hospital. In the chief-examination dated 11-8-1999 he stated that while he was going on motorcycle on the left side of the road and when he reached mopeds Factory, thebus came in the opposite direction and hit his motorcycle resulting in the accident. He did not mention as to who shifted him to the hospital. In the further chief-examination held about one moth after the first chief-examination he introduced the story of one Venkataramaiah admitting him in the hospital, in the cross-examination he introduced the story of going along with his friend Radhakrishan on his motorcycle and walking along with him. There is no consistency in the version of the petitioner regarding the cause of accident, manner of accident, noting of the number of the bus, and the persons accompanied him at the time of accident. From the above facts there is a doubt whether the petitioner came to the tribunal with clean hands and whether he was tutored by somebody to introduce the story of bus accident for the injuries received by him by falling from the motorcycle. From the above facts there is a doubt whether the petitioner came to the tribunal with clean hands and whether he was tutored by somebody to introduce the story of bus accident for the injuries received by him by falling from the motorcycle. The petitioner stated that a particular bus caused the accident as alleged by him on 29-1-1996 at about 5 p. m. There is also variation in timings mentioned by him which causes lot of difference because there will be timings to different buses that have to maintain the schedule given to them. In the registered notice and the petition he mentioned that the accident occurred at 5-45 p. m. In the evidence the petitioner mentioned that the accident occurred at 5 p. m P. W. 2 did not mention whether it is evening or morning. In Ex. A-6-copy of Accident Register the time of accident was mentioned as 6-30 p. m. . ( 19 ) IT is the specific version of the corporation that there was no accident with the bus as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent in the counter mentioned that the bus alleged to be involved in the accident belongs to Guntakal Depot and it did not ply at Tirupathi on the date of accident. In support of the said version the respondent examined r. Ws. l and 2. ( 20 ) R. W. 1 the driver of the bus AP 9z 2515 stated that on the dateofthe alleged accident i. e. , on 29-1-1996 the bus was plying between guntakal and Janardhanapalle covering the distance of 40 kms. It was an ordinary bus. No criminal case was filed against him in connection with the accident. He gave ex. B-1 letter to the Depot Manager, Guntakal statingthatthebusap9z2515didnot involve in any accident, the petitioner could not elicit any favourable information from R. W. I about the involvement of the bus as alleged by him. ( 21 ) R. W. 2 a senior Traffic Inspector of guntakal Depot deposed that he was in charge of allotment of duties to the drivers and conductors at Guntakal Bus Depot and fixes the route for the buses to ply. He further deposed that on 29-1-1996 the bus plied between Guntakal and Janardhanapalle and he gave further details to the effect that at 11 a. m. the bus left for Guntakal for first trip. He further deposed that on 29-1-1996 the bus plied between Guntakal and Janardhanapalle and he gave further details to the effect that at 11 a. m. the bus left for Guntakal for first trip. It reached Guntakal at 12-50 p. m and at 2-15 p. m. it left Guntakal for janardhanappalle. He further stated that the bus plied to Janardhanapalle for night halt. With reference to Ex,b-2-incoming and outgoing register he stated that one m. K. Ramanjaneyulu, driver brought the bus from Janardhanapalle to Guntakal with badge No. 574043 and again the bus was taken from Guntakal to Janardhanapalle by r. W. I with Badge No. 110456. He also stated that he makes entries in the incoming and outgoing registers for each and every bus plying in Guntakal by mentioning the number of the vehicle, the name of the driver, badge number etc. He further stated that in Ex. B-3-letter written to the Depot manager he stated that bus AP 9z 2515 did not come to Chittoor District and no accident took place on 29-1-1996 with the said bus. He further stated that the distance between guntakal and Tirupathi is about 400 kms. ( 22 ) IN the crooss-examination R. W. 2 mentioned that the trip sheets of the buses will be preserved for two years and as the o. P. was filed three years after the accident, the trip sheets were destroyed, therefore, they were not available in the depot. He further stated that since the was no intimation about the accident on 29-1-1996 they could not preserve the trip sheets, otherwise they would have preserved them. The petitioner could not elicit any favourable information from this witness also. ( 23 ) THE tribunal instead of taking into consideration the above circumstances accepted the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 regard ing the manner of accident unmindful of the contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses from time to time. The tribunal was led away more on the ground of sympathy then on the basis of evidence available on record. In the light of the above circumstances. I hold that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of the bus hitting him or that the bus plied at Tirupathi at the time" of accident. The tribunal was led away more on the ground of sympathy then on the basis of evidence available on record. In the light of the above circumstances. I hold that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of the bus hitting him or that the bus plied at Tirupathi at the time" of accident. The tribunal commented that the corporation did not give any reply to the registered notice without verifying that there was no acknowledgment filed by the petitioner in proof of service of notice. The tribunal also erred in not appreciating the material placed by the respondent and commenting that the respondent failed to produce the other records. It is not the case of the petitioner that the record was not maintained in the ordinary course of the functioning of the Corporation. In the light of the above circumstances I differ with the view expressed by the tribunal and In hold that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred with the bus of the respondent bearing registration no. AP9z 2515. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in n. K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and other wherein the Supreme Court issued certain guidelines to claims tribunals to take sufficient care to see that the innocent victims do not suffer and those guidelines are as follows: accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The heavy economic impact to culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbourhood . Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. ( 25 ) THERE is no dispute regarding the guidelines to be followed as per the above decision. But the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are entirely different which do not warrant application of any of the above guidelines. This point is accordingly answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent Corporation. ( 25 ) THERE is no dispute regarding the guidelines to be followed as per the above decision. But the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are entirely different which do not warrant application of any of the above guidelines. This point is accordingly answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent Corporation. Point No. 2: ( 26 ) IN the light of the findings given under Point No. 1 that the bus did not involve in the accident, the question of giving any finding about the rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 9z 2515 does not arise. This point is accordingly answered. Point No. 3: ( 27 ) SINCE it was held in Point. No. 1 that the bus did not involve in the accident, the question of awarding compensation to the petitioner against the respondent does not arise. This point is accordingly held against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. ( 28 ) THE order of the tribunal dated 4-11-1999 is therefore liable to be set aside. ( 29 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 4-11-1999 of the tribunal ino. P. No. 430 of 1998 is set aside. No order as to costs.