Shama & Ors. vs Pramod & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 898 Del

45
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +       MAC.APP.No. 421/2004

                                Date of Decision: 16th February, 2010

%     SHAMA & ORS.                        ..... Appellants
                            Through Mr. H.K. Shekhar and
                            Mr.Ranjeet Singh, Advocates.

                       versus

      PRAMOD & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                            Through Mr. Dharamveer Gupta, Adv.
                            for R-1.
                            Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-2.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                     NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                    NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                            NO
        reported in the Digest?

                           JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the

learned Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been

dismissed on the ground that the accident has not occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by respondent No.1.

2. The accident dated 24th April, 1992 resulted in the

death of Ramesh. The deceased was sitting on the pillion of

two wheeler scooter bearing No. DBI-5295 being driven by

respondent No.1. The rear wheel of the scooter came out due

to which respondent No.1 lost the balance of the scooter

which fell down resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased.

Respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box and deposed

that he was driving the offending vehicle very carefully at the

speed of about 20km per hour but the rear wheel of the

scooter suddenly got detached, due to which respondent lost

control.

3. No evidence was led by the appellant to prove the rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle of respondent

No.1. The appellant no.1 appeared in the witness box as

AW-1 and deposed about the rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal rejected testimony of

appellant No.1 on the ground that appellant No.1 was not

present at the time of the accident and her evidence was

mere hearsay.

4. There is no infirmity in the finding of the learned

Tribunal. The finding of the learned Tribunal is upheld. No

orders as to cost.

J.R. MIDHA, J

FEBRUARY 16, 2010 HL