The Branch Manager, The National ... vs Dipak @ Shambuling And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3618 Kant

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

               MFA No.200881/2021 (MV)

Between:

The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Behind S.S. Temple
S.S.Road City of Vijapura
Now through its Authorized Signatory,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bilgundi Complex, Kalaburagi.
                                            ... Appellant
(By Sri S.S.Aspalli, Advocate)

And:

1.     Dipak @ Shambuling
       S/o Rajendra Birajdar,
       Age: 26 Years, Occ: Earlier
       Working in Transport Co.
       R/o Nandagaon, Tq. Tuljapur,
       Dist. Osmanabad Now residing at
       Banjara Cross, Vijapura-586 102.

2.     Sri S.Dharmaraj S/o Subbu,
       Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business,
       R/o No.4/187, North Street Arur Post,
       Namkkal, Dist. Namakkal-637 404
       State of Tamil Nadu.
                                          ... Respondents
                                2




      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to set aside the judgment
and award dated 04.06.2020 passed by the IV-Additional
District    Judge   and   MACT-XIII    Vijayapura,    in   MVC
No.1323/2015, by allowing the above appeal.


      This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-


                          JUDGMENT

There is no representation for the appellant. This

appeal was filed on 08.10.2020. This matter was listed on

31.08.2021 and two weeks' time was granted to comply

with the office objections. The matter was again listed on

17.11.2021, on that day, one week time was granted to

comply with the office objections. Thereafter, the matter

was listed on 10.12.2021, again one week time was

granted to comply with the office objections.

Today, matter is listed for the fourth time for

compliance of office objections. There is no representation

for the appellant. Inspite of granting sufficient

opportunity, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to

comply with the office objections. It seems that the

appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*