Full Text
MAC.APP.No. 421/2004
Date of Decision: 16th February, 2010 SHAMA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. H.K. Shekhar and Mr.Ranjeet Singh, Advocates.
Through Mr. Dharamveer Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-2.
JUDGMENT
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 2010:DHC:937 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