SMT. GEETHAMMA v. SRI. RAHIMATHULLA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C M POONACHA
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105549 OF 2023 (MV D) BETWEEN 1 . SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O UDYA KUMAR AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. NIL 2 . KUM ANUSHA U D/O UDAYAKUMAR AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 3 . KUM AKSHATHA U D/O UDAYAKUMAR AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O HARNAHALLI KOTE VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. SHIVAMOGGA, NOW @ KAMALA NAGAR RANEBENNUR-581115 TQ. RANEBENNUR DIST. HAVERI (By SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADV. AND SRI. B. MITHUNARAJ, ADV. ) ... APPELLANTS AND 1 . SRI. RAHIMATHULLA AGE.NOT MENTIONED , OCC. NOT MENTIONED, R/O. C K ROAD 2 POST KONDANADUR, TQ. THIRTHAHALLI, DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577432 ( OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BAJAJ REG. NO,KA-14-9144) 2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023 (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BAJAJ REG. NO. KA-14-9144) INSURANCE POLICY NO. 473190/31/2020/366 VALID FROM 25-04-2019 TO 24-04-2020 ******** ... RESPONDENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 19.11.2022 passed in MVC No. 515/2020 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Hon’ble Court passed the following;
O R D E R Office objections to be complied with within six weeks, failing which the above appeal shall automatically stand dismissed without further orders from the Court. SD/- JUDGE 3 //COPY// As per the endorsement made in the order sheet dated 05.04.2025, the Advocate for appellants has not complied the office objections. Hence, this MFA No. 105549 of 2023 stands dismissed as per the Court order dated
25.11.2024. T By: cnb C By: lh BY ORDER OF THE COURT SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
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.