Budde Jagannatha Jagannatha @ ... vs Y. Mallikarjuna S/O Y ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2004 Kant

                     :1:



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2015

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100663/2015 (MV)


BETWEEN:

1.   BUDDE JAGANNATHA @
     B.JAGANNATHA REDDY
     S/O B.PARAMESHWARAPPA,
     AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O. JAJARAKAL VILLAGE,
     D.HIREHAL MANDALAM,
     BELAGAL CROSS, BALLARI

2.   SMT.ANNAPURNA
     W/O. BUDDE JAGANNATHA
     @ B.JAGANNATHA REDDY
     AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. JAJARAKAL VILLAGE,
     D.HIREHAL MANDALAM,
     NOW R/O. RAMANJINEYA NAGAR,
     BELAGAL CROSS, BALLARI
                                      ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. AMIRKHAN A. PATHAN, ADV.)
                      :2:



AND:

1.   Y. MALLIKARJUNA
     S/O. Y NETTAKALAPPA
     AGE: MAJOR, DRIVER OF THE CAR
     BEARING REG. NO. KA-35/M-9771,
     R/O. NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
     1ST CROSS, S.N.PET, BALLARI.

2.   SMT.K.M.NALINI,
     W/O K.MANJUNATHA
     AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE CAR
     BEARING REG. NO. KA-35/M-9771,
     R/O. 1ST WARD,
     MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     HOSPETE TALUKA,
     BALLARI DIST.

3.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
     BALLARI.
                              ... RESPONDENTS
                       ---

     MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:21.03.2012,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.1380/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IX,
BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              :3:



                          JUDGMENT

On 22.04.2015, the Addl. Registrar General has granted

three weeks' time to comply with the office objections. In view of

non-compliance, case was posted before the Court on 05.06.2015.

On that day, time was extended till 23.06.2015 to comply with the

office objections. Thereafter, on 26.06.2015, time was extended

till 10.07.2015 for compliance. But, as of today, office objections

have not been complied with. Today, when the case is called out,

there is no representation for the appellants.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab