The Divisional Manager vs Kum. Nandini D/O Dastagiri And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 12756 Kant

                              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                   KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.200197/2015 (MVC)

Between:

The Divisional Manager
KSRTC, Bellary Depot,
Bellary,
Through its;
The Managing Director
NEKRTC, Sarige Sadana,
Main Road, Gulbarga,
Represented by:
The Chief Law Officer.

                                               ...Appellant

(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate - Absent)

And:

1.     Kum. Nandini D/o Dastagiri
       Age: 9 years, Occ: Student,
       R/o Station Area,
       Raichur, Since Minor U/g of father
       Dastagiri S/o Chennappa
       Age: Major, Occ: Barber,
       R/o Station Area,
       Raichur - 584 101.
                              2




2.    Arunkumar
      S/o Chennappa
      Age: 37 years,
      Occ: Driver of Bus
      No.KA-34/F-1030,
      R/o Madhri village,
      Tq. Muddebihal,
      Dist. Bijapur - 586 101.

                                             ...Respondents

      This MFA is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 03.11.2014 passed in
MVC No.581/2013 on the file of MACT & II-Addl. Dist &
Sessions Judge at Raichur, partly allowing the claim petition
and awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,31,000/- with
interest at 6% P.A.

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


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 04.02.2015. As the

appellant failed to comply with the office objections

within six weeks' time permitted in law, the appeal came

to be listed before the Court for orders on 18.06.2015

regarding non-compliance of office objections, on which

day, the appellant was granted two weeks' time to

comply with the office objections. Again on 10.07.2015,

he was granted four weeks' time to comply with the

office objections. Till today, neither the office objections

are complied with nor there is representation for the

appellant.

2. The above facts would go to show that the

appellant has no interest in the appeal.

3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections and for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE sdu