SRI VALERIAN RAJESH LOBO v. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
MFA.CROB/138/2017 · 2025-01-09
C M Poonacha, K S Mudagal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30370 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30370 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:806-DB MFA.CROB No.138/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.138/2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI VALERIAN RAJESH LOBO S/O LATE EMMANUEL LOBO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2.
KUM RELWEENA RISHAL LOBO D/O VELERIAN RAJESH LOBO AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
3.
KUM ROSHNI REYOLA LOBO D/O VALERIAN RAJESH LOBO AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, CROSS OBJECTOR 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1 WHO IS THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESIDING AT LOBO VILLA BEHIND GURUDEV TOWERS, KAVOOR KATTE, KAVOOR MANGALORE … CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SMT. PUSHPAVENI AJITH.,ADVOCATE(ABSENT))
AND:
1.
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VARANASI TOWERS MISSION STREET BUNDER, MANGALORE
2.
SRI ABUBAKKAR S/O MOHAMMED RESIDING AT No.5/86, NEERAMARGA POST, MANGALORE … RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:806-DB MFA.CROB No.138/2017
THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SEC.
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1563/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS M.F.A. CROB. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
No representation for the cross objector.
Records show that even on previous hearing dates, there was no representation from the cross objector.
Needful in respect of respondent No.2 not done despite granting sufficient opportunity.
There is delay of 898 days in filing the cross objection. There are no grounds to grant further time for compliance. Hence, cross objection is dismissed.
Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0