IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6336/2017(WC) BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUM W/O LATE SYED ASIF AHAMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A DOOR NO.2/10, 7TH CROSS, MANDAWADI ROAD, NACHANANAHALLI PALYA, MYSURU.
2 . MAS SYED MUJEEB REHAMAN S/O LATE SYED ASIF AHAMED AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS (MINOR) REP BY HIS MOTHER SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUM, ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1 . SRI SYED SADATH S/O SYED KABEER R/A NO.344, MASJID ROAD NAZARBAD, MYSORE (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-05 C-5533) SINCE 1ST RESPONDENT DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 1. SAKEENA W/O LATE SYED SADATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2 . SYED RAYAN S/O LATE SYED SADATH AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 3 . SAYYIDA MARIYAM FATHIMA D/O LATE SYED SADATH AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, 4. SAYYIDA IRRAM FATHIMA D/O LATE SYED SADATH AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1 ALL ARE R/A DOOR NO.344 MOSQUE ROD, NAZARBAD, CHAMUNDIBETTA, MYSORE.
5 . ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ZENITH HOUSE, KHADE MARG MAHALAKSHMI MUMBAI 400 051 MYSORE BRANCH ICICI LOMBOARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE.
…RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.07.2016 PASSED IN ECA No.72/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
CAUSE TITLE TYPED AS IN THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT APPEAL.
THIS MFA COMING UP FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
J U D G M E N T This Court by the order dated 16.10.2019, as a last chance, finally a week’s time was granted for compliance of office objections, failing which the Miscellaneous First Appeal would be listed for dismissal.
2. Today, the matter is listed for dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of office objections.
3. Case called thrice. None appeared for the appellants nor complied office objections inspite of last chance provided. It clearly indicates that the appellants are not interested in complying the order dated 16.10.2019. Therefore, this Court has no option except to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of office objections.
Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/- JUDGE Gss/-