Smt. Shylaja vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1588 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

             M.F.A. NO.4856 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. SHYLAJA
       W/O LATE BASAVARAJU
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

2.     B. SHARDHA
       D/O LATE BASAVARAJU
       AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
       SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER
       AND NATURAL GARDIAN
       SMT. SHYLAJA.

       BOTH ARE RESIDING
       R/AT NO.794, 12TH B CROSS
       DOUBLE ROAD
       YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
       K.H.B,. BANGALORE-560064.
                                              .... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. ANIL S. PRASANALLI, ADV., (ABSENT))

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT
       BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICES
       KH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR
       BANGALORE-560027.
                                 2



2.   SHIVASHAARANAPPA
     S/O DODDAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

3.   HONNAMMA
     W/O SHIVASHARANAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

     BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
     NO.794, B SECTOR, 21ST STAGE
     DOUBLE ROAD, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
     BANGALORE-560064.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. F.S. DABALI, ADV., FOR R1
    MR. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)
                             ---

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.3.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.2142/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 27TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,            THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

None for the appellants.

Mr.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the revenue No.1.

Mr.Ashok B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

None had appeared on behalf of the appellants even on

12.02.2021. Today also, none appears on behalf of the

appellants. It appears that the appellants are not interested

in prosecuting the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV