Ariport Driector Airport Auth Of ... vs Ram Swaroop And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1145 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3766/2016

1.      Airport Director, Airport Authority Of India, Airport, Jaipur.
                                                                     (Insurer)
2.     Director, Airport Authority Of India (National Airport
       Division) Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjang, New Delhi.
       (Owner Of Vehicle Of Fire Brigade Abhivijay, 032, Chesis
       No. 37163, Engine No. 6048).
                                                                      (Owner)
3.     Jai Narayan S/o Sh. Ram Sahai, R/o Plot No. 105, Braj
       Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       (Driver)
                                                                 ----Appellants
                                   Versus
1.     Ram Swaroop S/o Sh. Ram Sahai, aged about 56 years,
       R/o Plot No. 112-B, Mansagar Colony, Pratap Nagar,
       Sanganer, Jaipur.
                                                      ....Respondent/Claimant

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office M.I. Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Having Its Regional Office At Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Regional Manager.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     None
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

31/01/2022

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Mr. Ram

Swaroop submits that this appeal was filed by the Director-Airport

Authority Of India, Jaipur aggrieved by the judgment granting

compensation in favour of Mr. Ram Swaroop. Ram Swaroop had

(2 of 2) [CMA-3766/2016]

filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3835/2016 for enhancement of

compensation. The appeal of Ram Swaroop was remitted back for

reconsideration and the learned Tribunal has also decided the

matter afresh, therefore, this appeal is infructuous now.

No one appears for the appellants.

In the facts and circumstances that the impuged order had

merged in subsequent order passed by the Tribunal, this appeal is

infructuous now.

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed as infructuous.

The pending applications also stand dismissed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR ),J

CHARU/32

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)