Appeals may be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant repeatedly fails to appear.

The appellant filed five appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging awards made in separate motor accident claim petitions.

On the hearing date, no one appeared for the appellant in any appeal; the Court noted that the appellant had also been unrepresented on the previous occasion and that office objections in MFA Nos. 5654/2015 and 5655/2015 remained uncomplied with.

Counsel for the insurer appeared in four appeals.

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellant failed to appear and, in two appeals, failed to comply with office objections.

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeals against awards of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court cited no specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive rule governing dismissal for non-prosecution; it treated the appellant’s repeated absence and failure to comply with office objections as demonstrating a lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeals.

The appellant’s absence on the hearing date, following non-appearance on the prior occasion, showed that the appeals were not being diligently prosecuted.

The unremedied office objections in MFA Nos. 5654/2015 and 5655/2015 further supported that conclusion.

The Court therefore disposed of the appeals for non-prosecution without examining the merits of the challenged awards.

It made no determination on the merits of the compensation awards.