The Managing Director vs Sri Ramachandera Sambaji … on 30 July, 2009

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U-AIDER SECTION 1'?3(1) OF THE
MGTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MQDIFY/SET ASIDE
THE 3i}DGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C. NO. 3253/2095 BATES
20.11.2007

ON THE FILE SF FAST TRACK COURT–II & _MEMBER
ADDL. M.APPEL£..A”f’E COURTT, BELGAUM AT 8Ei.GAUM.

THIS APPEAL COMING on FOR ORDERS THES4’_»i§}i¥T;:VTHE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3UDGMENT

This matter is coming on befo:*e’1,’:A’th¢’_:A4CT2Ar t.h’ir£§v..;ti:n7gev’i*or

not complying the office objectizms. “i’o_<:ia~y whfifi r:i;;Afte%"§sV

cailed in tviiii:-;"firSi:':;;"oLi'::*i.§'-:£;– there is iwwrépresentation. Again, when

the matfe_r" 'second round, there is; no

representaticirn.VA Hen:;eA,'..v"th'é apgeai is dismissed for non

" 'confipiiéslc§.§AV'ef_the 5ffic.e..object%ons.

Sd/-

JUDGE

A i * ‘»3é£::%? T