Kumari Guneshwari Sahu v. Biharilal Jayaswal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed in default of the appellant
Provisions considered
- MotorVehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Nobel Aashram Road, Near Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Katcheri Chowk, Jait Road, Raipur (C.G.) Bridge, Nehru Appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 Present: No one appears for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed…
Judgment
Sjnfll^Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.577 of 2007 Appellant Respondents Kumari Guneshwari Sahu, age 13 years(minor), D/o Deshraj Sahu, on behalf of applicant her father, as a next friend, Deshraj Sahu, aged 37 years, S/o Aadhar Sahu, R/o near Behar School, Post Rasni, Thana & Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) versus
Biharilal Jayaswal, age 47 years, S/o Rambali Jayaswal, Driver of Maruti Van, Gurudwara, Near Katoratalab, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) R/o
M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., through Managing Director, M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Premchand House Anes, Second Floor, High Court Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
Operative part
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Nobel Aashram Road, Near Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Katcheri Chowk, Jait Road, Raipur (C.G.) Bridge, Nehru Appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 Present: No one appears for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2008) No one appears for the appellant. Earlier when the matter was called for hearing, no one appeared (2) for the appellant. The matter was passed over. Even now, when the matter was called for hearing again, no one (3) appeared for ;the appeltant nor any representation was made on her behalf. , l (4) The appeal is dismissed in default of the appellant. ;\ Gopal J^bT)^"'* ^wo^~
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed in default of the appellant
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
MotorVehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.