Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the award dated 1st January, 1996 in O.P. No. 1219 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The A.P.S.R.T.C. filed this appeal.
2. On 31st August, 1992 at about 9.45 p.m., R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. AP-9-Z-2300, was proceeding from Hyderabad to Guntur. When the bus crossed Nalgonda Cross-roads in the city and proceeding forward towards Dilsukhnagar, an Ambassador car bearing No. AAY 2054, came in the opposite direction. Deceased S. Raju and some others were travelling in the Ambassador car. There was collusion between R.T.C. bus and Ambassador car. Raju sustained injuries in the accident. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. Later he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. His wife and other dependants filed the claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the R.T.C, alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R.T.C. bus by its driver R.W. 1. The R.T.C. contested the claim application taking the plea that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by car driver and R.T.C. driver was not driving the vehicle negligently or rashly at the time of accident. Regarding the accident, the claimants examined only one eye-witness viz., P.W. 2. R.T.C. authorities examined its bus driver as R.W. 1. On a consideration of oral evidence of P.W. 2 and R.W. 1 and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants like F.I.R., Charge-sheet, M.V. Inspector's report, etc., the learned Tribunal held that the claimants proved that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by R.T.C. driver. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,83,500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, R.T.C. authorities preferred the present appeal.
3. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. AP-9-Z-2300?
4. P.W. 2 was examined by the claimants as eye-witness to the occurrence. I have carefully read and considered the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 is a resident of Kukatpally area in the city. The accident took place near Nalgonda Cross-roads, which is at a distance of more than 20 kilometres from Kakatpally. The accident took place beyond 9.45 p.m. It is not the locality where P.W. 2 resides. Therefore, he is a chance witness and his presence at the scene of offence when the accident took place, is highly improbable. The driver of the car gave the complaint to the police. Oil the basis of his complaint the police issued F.I.R. The owner of the car himself was driving the vehicle. Besides the owner, the deceased and one another person were also admittedly, travelling in the Ambassador car. The claimants did not examine the owner of the Ambassador car to depose about the manner of accident. They did not also examine the other person who was travelling in the Ambassador car. Those will be the relevant persons to give evidence about the manner in which the accident took place. Further any person residing near the scene of offence, was not examined by the claimants to prove the manner in which the accident took place. As per the charge-sheet, there was one another eye-witness. That eye-witness was also not examined by the claimants. P.W. 2 examined by the claimants, as an eye-witness, was not cited as an eye-witness in the charge-sheet filed by the police. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W. 2, givers me the clear impression that he is giving false evidence. There are traffic signals near Nalgonda Cross-roads. It is the evidence of R.W. 1 that red signal was given and, therefore, he stopped the vehicle near Nalgonda Cross-roads as he started the vehicle after the green signal and after he moved ahead the Ambassador car came in the opposite direction and dashed against his bus. The accident did not take place even according to the claimants near Nalgonda Cross-roads. It took place at some distance from Nalgonda Cross-roads. P.W. 2 deposed that R.T.C., driver R.W. 1 did not stop the vehicle near Nalgonda Cross-roads. If that evidence of P.W. 2 is correct, he would not have witnessed the accident which had taken place at some distance from Nalgonda Cross-roads. Further the accident took place during night time. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 that he witnessed the manner in which the accident took place, cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, if the evidence of P.W. 2 is disbelieved or rejected, there is no other evidence adduced by the claimants to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by R.T.C. driver. Now, I would examine the oral testimony of R.T.C., driver R.W. 1. He deposed that he was going at a low speed and at that time he noticed the Ambassador car overtaking a Maruthi vehicle and then coming in a high speed. He also deposed that the Ambassador car came and dashed against his vehicle. His evidence is to the effect that at the time of the accident he was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road. That crucial evidence was not challenged during his cross-examination. Therefore, that crucial circumstance shows that unless the Ambassador car came in a wrong direction and dashed against R.T.C. bus, the accident in question, would not have taken place. That crucial aspect in the evidence of R.T.C. driver R.W. 1, was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Regarding the evidence of R.W. 1, that he stopped the vehicle for some time near Nalgonda Cross-roads, due to the red signal, the learned Tribunal observed that there is no need for a vehicle to stop, at Nalgonda Cross-roads due to traffic red signal, if that vehicle was proceeding towards Dilsukhnagar. The learned Tribunal observed in its judgment that the Tribunal takes judicial notice of the traffic regulations. These observations are made by the learned Tribunal overlooking the evidence of R.W. 1 why he stopped This bus near Nalgonda Cross-roads. He deposed in this cross-examination that some of the buses going towards Nagarjunasagar, were standing ahead of his bus? and, therefore, he could not proceed towards Dilsukhnagar. When some bther vehicles, which have to take a turn towards Nagarjunasagar side due to red signal, it is highly probable that the R.T.C. driver was not able to proceed further towards Dilsukhnagar. This evidence elicited in the cross-examination of R.W. 1, missed the attention of the learned Tribunal while appreciating the evidence of R.W. 1. I, therefore, feel satisfied that the claimants failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R.T.C. driver. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim damages from R.T.C., under the theory of 'fault liability'. They are entitled for compensation under the theory of 'no fault liability' alone. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The claim application is allowed partly. The respondent, shall pay the claimants a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only with future interest thereon at 9% p.m., from the date of accident till the date of payment with proportionate ' costs. Out of the compensation amount awarded the wif-est-1st claimant shall receive Rs. 20,000/- and entire costs. The other claimants 2 to 7 shall receive Rs. 5,000/- each with interest thereon. The compensation awarded to the minor-claimant Nos. 2 to 5 shall be received by their mother-1st claimant and utilised for the benefits and needs of the claimant-minors.