IN THE HIGH com?!' OF KAENATAKA7 Vi' T T. V
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD E E T. "
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY ore' j
BEFORE T' V' M
THE HON'BLE MR JUSPJCE ASH O'K B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST Ap§§E.aL rec5'.~s{)7:;/
BETWEEN:
SMTSUMITRA, V '
S/O BI-IIMRAO
AGE:59YEARS,
occ: HOUSEh'oL::)_,_w0RK..._ " .
R/0 WJAYENGAR. . T-
BELGAUM. " ..APPELL.ANT
(BY SET SUrs1iL'S_--vVS,ESAr,' 4.§:)1£._§ E022 SR} C.H.JADE-IAV, ADV. 3
A_1'£D_=
1. i?%;2AKA.SH SHWAJI KOKITKAR,
» SHNAJI KOKi'fi(AR,
" , A'SE:'3S YEARS,
' '0cc:..,pT2;vEE,--_R/o KALKUNDR1
.fFAI;GK~.F3EL§3.4LUM,
- A r;1S'n2:'c'1ff «BEELGAUM.
_ 2. SHWAJI RANU KOKYPKAR,
S/0 Emu KOTIKAR,
L' .. AGE: SSYEARS,
V 009: BUSINESS,
'E10 KALKUNDRI,
" E TALUK BELGAUM,
H r DISTRICT BELGAUM.
3. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE
C0. L'i"D., BRANCH OFFICE,
GADAHINGLAJ,
DISTRXCI' KOLHAPUR. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SR! N.R.KUPPELUR, ADV, FOR SR! B.C.SEE’I’HARAMA RAO
FOR R3, ADV. SR1 S.R.SHINDE FOR R} AND 33, ADV, }
MVC NO.208/197 my TO RES’l’ORE’TPfE’SVA’ME;’ 9 ‘– ,
THIS M!SCELI.ANEOUS F1Rs?i*.A£:sé.éAL C§QMIrIG “M5132,
HEARING THIS BAY, THE coumj DELIVERED ‘r§;E..;=«*01,1,ow1Nc;:, A
T _
Sri N.R.Kuppciu}f;~~- undertakes to
file vakalat for the mspondfip’t%’.l§9 ‘ 1 ._
2. the order, dated
07/021 QOI56. Principal D’mtrict Judge,
Bcxgazina mmgcf
3. of the case are that one Sri
_ Bmm;9;m999 with the road name accident on
V. sufibmd grievous injmies all over the body.
“He!”suc¢infibAcd:9″t§ the injuries on 0710111999. During his
9 am MVC 140.293/1997 for compcnsatieva.
H ciéznisc, the appellant-his wife came on record as the
19,313: iépmsentafive of the dmsed Bhimxao Salunkc. On
wjomtaments and imposing cost on wrlicr
‘ ‘occasions, the Tnbunai at last dismiscd the Claim Pbtition
on 11/09/2002 for default. The appellant sought its
restoration by Misc.Ca%%.153/2003 invoking Order
IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This
aiso dismissed on the followm g grounds: ‘ V’ V’ 3
a. The delay of 11 months in e.
petition is not
b. The medical ce111fica’ of = ”
the appellantfe’ aziiment” is
c. Advocate’s__ afidaviic L
absence Nona 11/£_)9)’ is not
:1. The .vappcnant and
e. deposited.
_ -the learned counsel for the
appellant eppeflanfs absence before the
‘l’Iib1;;2alLAwa’e’ circumstances beyond her control.
” at i§%e::£ereca1d”cag,¢e ailments, which came in the way
e’ the clam petition.
5. N.R.Kuppelur, the learned counsel appearm g
. K of the impugned award contending that the
V[ ‘apjnellant has never been diligent in prosecuting the appeal.
‘ Further he submits that if the claim petition is restored, the
3’4 respondent Insurance Company has to bear the bunien
of paying the intexest for no fault on its part.
38H.
claim Petition, deposited with the Tribunal
weeks from today.
13. In the result, I alloxiaté this
terms. Considering that’ the on 0′
04/07; 1996 and the ooojopemon year
1997, I also deem the Tribunal to
dispose of the ‘ six months
from the copy of today’s
onder. H directed to co-«operate
with disposal of the matter.
The appoflaot :’::_’:?os;pondents are directed to
‘before on 1810812008 Without
from the Tribunal. No order as to
costso.004 0’
0 to file vakalat for the respondent No.3 within one
from today.
kmv