Mamta Vs. Yogendra

.....been issued by the insurance company; (ii) tribunal has recorded a finding that injuries received by the claimant are not caused during the use of arising out of use of motor vehicle yet compensation is awarded; (iii) where the owner of the vehicle feels that insurance company has been improperly exonerated from payment of compensation; and (iv) claimant may claim the amount of compensation such as loss of suffering or medical treatment, which has not been awarded by the claims tribunal though sufficient evidence is available on record.- section 173(2); remedy of appeal under held, remedy of appeal under section 173(2) is not available to assail award passed by the m.a.c.t if the amount in dispute is less than rs.10,000/-. aggrieved party has the remedy of revision under section 115 of c.p.c., the constitutional remedy under articles 226/227 stands barred in view of alternative efficacious remedy under section 115 of c.p.c., - 1. the unsuccessful non-applicant has filed this miscellaneous appeal under section 47 of the guardian and wards act against the order dated 19.1.1990 passed by viii additional judge to the court of district judge, indore in gruadian case no.a.r. tiwari, j.1. the unsuccessful non-applicant has filed this miscellaneous appeal under section 47 of the guardian and wards act against the order dated 19.1.1990 passed by viii additional judge to the court of district judge, indore in gruadian case no. 28/89 thereby declaring the respondent as guardian of minor son hemant and directing the appellant to hand-over this minor to the respondent,2. facts lie in a narrow compass.the appellant was married to respondent on 18.4.1987. hemant was born to them. the wedlock turned out to be deadlock. the dispute arose as to who should keep the minor child. the respondent filed the application under section 25 of the guardian and wards act before the trial court. the trial court heard both sides and passed the aforesaid order. aggrieved, the wife has filed this miscellaneous appeal.3. none appeared for the appellant to press this appeal. mr. r.n. gupta, learned counsel appeared for the respondent. he submitted that hemant is now about eight years' old and the respondent-father has the legal right to keep the son and act as his guardian.' according to him, the order passed by the court below is on firm foundation and is not liable to be dislodged or demolished. appellant remained absent in the trial court and was proceeded ex-parte. ex- parte evidence shows that the appellant was a woman of loose character. it is submitted that welfare of the minor was kept in mind.4. however, as none appeared to press this appeal. i apply explanation inserted by amendment act, 1976 to order xli, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure and dismiss this appeal in default of appearance and for want of prosecution without examining the merits of the matter.5. there shall, however, be no order as to costs.