Orissa High Court
MACA/146/2010 of JYOTI BRAHMA TRIPATH Vs M/S.BAJAJ ALLIANZ IN on 2 September 2026
of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.146 of 2010 CNR No. ODHC010271702010 Jyoti Brahma Tripathy ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s.R.N.Biswal -versus- M/s. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/s.Adam Ali Khan CORAM: THE
Page 1 of 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.146 of 2010
CNR No. ODHC010271702010
Jyoti Brahma Tripathy
.....
Appellant
Represented by Adv. -
M/s.R.N.Biswal
-versus-
M/s. Bajaj Allianz Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors.
.....
Respondents
Represented by Adv. -
M/s.Adam Ali Khan
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
02.09.2026 Order No.
20.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. None appears for the Appellant-Owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is present. None appears for the claimant-Respondents when the matter is called.
3. On perusal of the record, it appears that learned counsel for the Appellant had also remained absent on the previous occasions when the matter was listed before the Co-ordinate Benches.
4. The present appeal has been filed by the Owner-Appellant under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, challenging the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2009 passed in M.A.C. No.137 of 2007 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Cuttack, whereby a sum of Rs.89,500/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant-Respondents. The Respondent-Insurance
Page 2 of 2. Company was directed to pay the awarded compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum and thereafter recover the same from the Owner by following due process of law.
5. Since the Appellant-Owner has remained unrepresented, despite the matter having been listed on several occasions, this Court is of the view that the Appellant has, in the meantime, lost interest in prosecuting the present appeal. Further, on perusal of the record, it appears that although the appeal was filed in the year 2010, no steps have been taken for issuance of notice to the Respondents.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal due to non- prosecution.
7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed due to non-prosecution by the Appellant.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Sep-2026 11:59:37 Signature Not Verified