The Regional Manager vs Dandu Nagaiah S/O D. Gayanna And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5856 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

              MFA No.201401/2021 (MV)


Between:

The Regional Manager,
APSRTC, Regional Office,
New Bus Stand Complex,
Mahaboobnagar,
(Telangana State), 500 037.
                                         ... Appellant
(By Sri. S.V.Deshmukh, Advocate)

And:

1.     Dandu Nagaiah S/o D.Gayanna,
       Age: 60 years, Occ: Coolie,

2.     Manemma @ Manyamkonda,
       D/o Dandu nagaiah,
       Age:30 years, Occ: Coolie,

3.     Premkumar S/o Dandu Nagaiah,
       Age: 29 years, Occ: Student,

       All are R/o: Gorita Village of
       Thimmagi Mandalm, Mahabubnagar,
       Now Residing at Myadarvadi,
       Raichur-585 201.
                                 2




4.    T. Janardhana Rao,
      S/o Basavapurnaiah,
      Age: Major, Occ: Owner of
      Bus bearing No.AP-16/TX-5029,
      H.No.19-137, Near Bose Statue Centre,
      Yanamalakuduru,
      Vijayawada, Krishna District,
      Andhra Pradesh.

5.    The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
      Branch Office Gunj Circle,
      Raichur.
                                               ... Respondents

       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V. Act praying to set aside the judgment
and award passed by the Court of the I Addl. District Judge
and MACT Raichur in MVC No.170/2011 dated 03.09.2013
and to modify the compensation awarded and to pass such
other or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the
facts circumstances of the case, including the cost.
      This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-
                       JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 27.03.2021. The matter

was posted before the Court on 01.02.2022. Three

weeks time was granted to comply with the office

objections. Matter listed on 11.03.2022. At the

request of learned counsel for the appellant, finally,

three weeks time was granted to comply with the

office objections. If the office objections are not

complied within the stipulated period, the appeal shall

be listed for dismissal on 31.03.2022.

2. It was made clear on 11.03.2022, if the

office objections are not complied within one week,

failing which the matter shall be listed for dismissal.

Even today learned counsel for the appellant not

complied the office objections.

3. This appeal is of the year 2021 and inspite

of granting sufficient opportunities, learned counsel

for the appellant did not complied the office

objections. If further time is extended, no purpose

would be served.

In view of the peremptory order, the appeal is

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr