Ulapi Naik v. Kandru Barik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA No.967 of 2018 Ulapi Naik and another ....

Appellants Mr.P.S.Das, Advocate -versusKandru Barik .... Respondent

CORAM:

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

20.7.2022 Order No.

6.

1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Notice on sole Respondent is treated sufficient in view of the provision contained in Order 5 Rule 9 C.P.C.

3. Heard Mr.Das, learned counsel for the Appellants.

4. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 3rd August, 2018 passed by the learned 1st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar in M.A.C.Case No.111 of 2016, wherein the prayer for compensation has been rejected stating the claimants have failed to produce any evidence in support of their case.

5. As it appears from the contents of the present appeal memo as well as from the judgment that the Appellants are unable to produce any prima facie document or material in support of their case. Neither any copy of the F.I.R. or registration of police case about the accident nor any other document in support of that is appended to this present appeal memo. As such, I do not see any

illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the claimants. As such, no ground is found in favour of the Appellants to admit the appeal.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed ( B.P. Routray) Judge C.R.Biswal