AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyoti Mulimani, J
Smt.Vijayalakshmi.K., learned counsel on behalf of Shankar Goud.G., for the appellant has appeared in person.
The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of appeal.
The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It also held that respondent No.1, being the owner of the auto rickshaw is held liable to pay the compensation and directed to deposit the entire compensation. The claim petition against the second respondent was dismissed.
In the present appeal, this Court vide order dated:30.11.2017, dispensed notice to the first respondent. In view of the dispensation of notice to the first respondent and dismissal of the claim petition against the second respondent, nothing survives for consideration in the appeal.
Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is rejected.