Kiran A C vs Natesh Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2276 Kant

                              1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                           BEFORE

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

                   M.F.A.NO.8287/2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

KIRAN A.C.,
S/O CHENNAVEERAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT AYANRAHALLI VILLAGE,
SABBANAHALLI POST,
HIRESAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
NOW AT BENGALURU-560072.                         ... APPELLANT

               (BY SRI HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     NATESH KUMAR,
       S/O NAGAPPA,
       AGE: MAJOR,
       NO. 452/1, LAGGERE,
       RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA
       MAIN ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM,
       BENGALURU-560068.

2.     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       NO. 25, SHANKARA NARAYANA BUILDING,
       M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.           ... RESPONDENTS

         (BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
                        R-1 NOT SERVED)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2011 PASSED
IN MVC.NO.4582/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL
                                2



CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM  PETITION   FOR  COMPENSATION   AND   SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

                        JUDGMENT

This matter is listed periodically to take steps against

respondent No.1 from 2019. The order dated 16.06.2016

dispensing notice to respondent No.1 was recalled vide order

dated 03.06.2019 and inspite of the same, steps are not taken

against respondent No.1 from 2019. This Court vide order dated

31.05.2021 has observed the same. However, in the ends of

justice, one more opportunity was granted to the learned

counsel for the appellant to take steps against respondent No.1.

Inspite of the opportunity granted, steps are not taken against

respondent No.1 and there is no representation on behalf of the

appellant. The Tribunal fixed the liability on the owner and

exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. For non-

taking of steps against respondent No.1, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD