The Branch Manager New India ... vs Maruthi S/O Vithoba Dhotre And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 12027 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                           PRESENT

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

                              AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.201650/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

The Branch Manager
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Hanamashetty Road, Bijapur
Through its Divisional Manager
                                            ... Appellant
(By Sri S.S. Aspalli, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Maruthi S/o Vithoba Dhotre
       Age: 76 years, Occ: Nil

2.     Kamal W/o Maruti Dhotre
       Age: 71 years, Occ: Nil

3.     Sunita W/o Ashok Dhotre
       Age: 40 years, Occ: Household work

4.     Shweta W/o Ashok Dhotre
       Age: 19 years, Occ: Student

5.     Shradha D/o Ashok Dhotre
       Age: 16 years, Minor U/G
                                             MFA No.201650/2016
                               2




     of respondent No.3

6.   Samadhan S/o Ashok Dhotre
     Age: 14 years, Minor U/G
     of respondent No.3

     All R/o Indi Road, Waddar Oni
     Bijapur

7.   M/s. Travel Time Car Rental Pvt. Ltd.
     SR No.7/3/1, Near Sai Rang Developers
     R/o Marunji, Tq. Munshi, Dist. Pune
     Maharashtra-412 111

                                                 ... Respondents

(By Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Advocate for R2 to R6;
 Vide order dated 25.05.2021 notice to R1 and R7 held
sufficient)


       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173
(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the records in
MVC No.114/2015 on the file of the II Additional District Judge
and Member MACT - III, Vijayapur dated 05.07.2016 and set
aside the judgment and award dated 05.07.2016 passed by the
II Additional District Judge and Member MACT - III, Vijayapur
dated 05.07.2016, imposing the liability to pay 50% of the
award amount, by allowing the above appeal in the interest of
justice and equity.

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

                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant neither present

physically nor through video conference. Learned counsel

for respondent Nos.2 to 6 alone is physically present.

MFA No.201650/2016

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show

that even on the previous occasions i.e., on 03.08.2022,

16.08.2022 (called in two rounds) and on 01.09.2022 the

learned counsel for the appellant had remained absent.

The appeal is of the year 2016. Hence, we do not find any

reasons to further adjourn the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

swk