FAO-3962 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 Manpreet Kaur Harneet Singh and CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Award dated 11.01.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed. issued in the same. for hearing for the first time on 18.01.2019 and at the request of learned counsel for the appellant photocopy of the record of Tribunal was ordered to be requisitioned. Thereafter, the case was listed for hearing 03 times i.e. on 09.05.2019, 31.10.2019 and 16.02.2023, out of which on 02 dates of hearing 09.05.2019 and 31.10.2019, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellant; whereas on 16.02.2023 (last date of hearing) the appellant had gone un appellant, despite the case having been called twice. 3962-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision: Manpreet Kaur Versus Harneet Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-claimant is in appeal against the impugned Award dated 11.01.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed. The matter pertains to the year 201 issued in the same. Perusal of the order-sheets reveals that for hearing for the first time on 18.01.2019 and at the request of learned counsel for the appellant photocopy of the record of Tribunal was ordered to be requisitioned. Thereafter, the case was listed for hearing 03 times i.e. .2019, 31.10.2019 and 16.02.2023, out of which on 02 dates of hearing 09.05.2019 and 31.10.2019, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellant; whereas on 16.02.2023 (last date of hearing) the appellant had gone un-represented. Today again, there is no representation on behalf of the despite the case having been called twice. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3962-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA claimant is in appeal against the impugned Award dated 11.01.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed. The matter pertains to the year 2017 and notice is yet to be sheets reveals that the matter was listed for hearing for the first time on 18.01.2019 and at the request of learned counsel for the appellant photocopy of the record of Tribunal was ordered to be requisitioned. Thereafter, the case was listed for hearing 03 times i.e. .2019, 31.10.2019 and 16.02.2023, out of which on 02 dates of hearing 09.05.2019 and 31.10.2019, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellant; whereas on 16.02.2023 (last date of represented. representation on behalf of the despite the case having been called twice. claimant is in appeal against the impugned Award dated 11.01.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant 7 and notice is yet to be e matter was listed for hearing for the first time on 18.01.2019 and at the request of learned counsel for the appellant photocopy of the record of Tribunal was ordered to be requisitioned. Thereafter, the case was listed for hearing 03 times i.e. .2019, 31.10.2019 and 16.02.2023, out of which on 02 dates of hearing 09.05.2019 and 31.10.2019, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellant; whereas on 16.02.2023 (last date of representation on behalf of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.03.28 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3962 has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to interest of justice. O casual and careless approach. It is clear that counsel is Court is left with no other option except to prosecution. 25.03.2025 rishu 3962-2017 (O&M) -2- A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant exhibited an utterly casual attitude in litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant l and careless approach. It is clear that seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to prosecution. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant exhibited an utterly casual attitude in her pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the n the other hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly l and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellant nor her seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the same for non- Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the appellant in the adopted an utterly seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this RISHU KATARIA 2025.03.28 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.