J D Roopesh vs K K Suresh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2548 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2021

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                   M.F.A.NO.7000/2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

J.D. ROOPESH,
S/O DEVARAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O CHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAGODU HOBLI,
SAKESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.                                 ... APPELLANT

           [BY SRI K.V. GIRISH, ADVOCATE - (ABSENT)]

AND:

1.     K.K. SURESH,
       S/O KALEGOWDA,
       R/O SANGAMESHWARA EXTENSION,
       II CROSS, ADLIMANE ROAD,
       HASSAN.

2.     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
       P.B. NO.108, 2ND FLOOR,
       VENKATESHWARA BUILDING,
       B.M. ROAD, HASSAN.                    ... RESPONDENTS

         [BY SRI HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2]

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2011 PASSED
IN MVC.NO.2288/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-2, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
                                 2



     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH 'VIDEO
CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This is the matter of the year 2012 and when the matter

was listed in 2013, an order was passed on 05.02.2013, granting

two weeks time to do the needful, failing which the appeal

shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. That

on 03.03.2014, the learned counsel Sri Hegde Mulkhand was

directed to take notice for respondent No.2 and the matter

was referred to Lok Adalath and the same was referred

back to the Court as there was no possibility of settlement. On

28.11.2019, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

that the copy of the appeal memo is not furnished to him.

Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant was directed to

serve the copy of the appeal memo on the learned counsel for

respondent No.2. When the matter was listed on 21.1.2020,

11.03.2020, 05.01.2021, 19.01.2021 and 17.03.2021, none

appeared. This Court vide order dated 25.05.2021 and

11.06.2021 directed the learned counsel for the appellant to

serve the copy of the appeal memo on the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 and the same has not been served till date.

Hence, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellant is

not interested in pursuing the matter. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD