Sadashiv Bhimraya Kanni vs Harun Mohammadsab Bepari And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 11524 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

                           PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                              AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200948/2022 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Sadashiv Bhimraya Kanni
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agril.
R/o Chikkarugi, Sindagi Tq.
Now residing at Yogapur
Vijayapura
                                               ... Appellant
(By Sri Vishal Pratap Singh, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Harun Mohammadsab Bepari
       Age: Major, Occ: Owner of vehicle
       No.KA-28/B-8752
       R/o Husainbasha Dargah Oni
       Indi, Vijayapura

2.     The Branch Manager
       Oriential Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Bidari Complex, 1st Floor
       S.S. Front Road, Vijayapura
       Policy No.473000/31/2015/7219
       Valid from 11.10.2014 to 10.10.2015
                                             ... Respondents
                                             MFA No.200948/2022
                               2




      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173
(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, praying to call for records and
modify the judgment and award dated 10.08.2021 passed by
the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT No.XV, Vijayapura, in
MVC No.1256/2015, allow the claim petition by awarding fair
and just compensation by allowing the appeal, in the interest of
justice and equity.


    This appeal coming on for orders through physical hearing/
video conference this day, Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry J.,
made the following:


                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant, appearing through

video conference, submits that he has complied all the

office objections but for one which is about furnishing

certified copy in MVC No.1256/2015 and award copy.

2. Though he contends that he has complied all

office objections, still, apart from furnishing of certified

copies, since there is one more office objection required to

be complied with by him and he is not agreeable to accept

that there is one more office objection still pending to be

complied with, it has to be inferred that the appellant is

not interested in complying the office objections, despite MFA No.200948/2022

the Court repeatedly bringing to his notice the existence of

more than one office objection for compliance.

Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

swk