SH RAJENDRA JHA Vs. ARTI ROHATGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Brief facts of the case inter-alia are that the appellant is a practicing advocate, aged about 41 years. On 31. 5. 2004 at about 5:20 p. m. while he was returning to his house from Tis Hazari Courts and was standing at bus stop of isbt, near Ritz Cinema Hall, the respondent No. 1 came from Mori Gate side by driving her car No. DL-6cb 5679 in rash and negligent manner and the said car ran over the right foot of the appellant causing him grievous injuries in his foot and various other injuries. The respondent No. 1 did not care to stop her car despite injuries caused to him and the appellant after noting down the number of the car informed the same to the Police Control Room. The police apprehended the respondent No. 1 and an FIR was registered with P. S. Kashmiri gate. The appellant in the meanwhile got himself medically examined at Aruna asaf Ali Hospital.

(2.) MR. P. S. Yadav, counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the tribunal has dismissed the petition of the appellant, although sufficient evidence was placed by the appellant so as to prove factum of negligence and the injuries sustained by the appellant. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that an FIR No. 258/2004 dated 31. 05. 2004 was registered against the respondent under Section 279/337 IPC and respondent alone had sought release of the offending car on Superdari, and therefore, there was no occasion for the tribunal to hold that the negligence was not proved by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant also contends that the respondent no. 1 did not lodge any counter complaint against the appellant, if as per the respondent, false FIR was registered by the appellant against her. The tribunal also overlooked grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the toe of his right leg and also the medical record duly proved in evidence. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the tribunal also overlooked the fact that during the trial, the appellant had duly identified respondent no. 1 to be the same person who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

(3.) PER contra, counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently refutes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant although, being an advocate by profession, has miserably failed to prove any kind of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1. Contention of counsel for the respondent is that without proving rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle, tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.