Anand Raj S/O Raju And Anr vs Vinod S/O Madanlal And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 10447 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

                MFA No.32863/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     Anand Raj S/o Raju,
       Aged about 45 years,
       Occ: Employee,

2.     K. Laxmi W/o Anand Raj,
       Aged about 42 years,
       Occ: Household,

       Both are R/o H.No.6-2-74/94,
       Laxman Layout, Raichur.
                                             ... Appellants

(By Sri. Manjunath M. Chidalli, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Vinod S/o Madanlal,
       Age: Major, Occ: Driver of vehicle,
       R/o Near Hamdard School,
       Raichur-584 101.

2.     Smt. Vikshani W/o Maruthi,
       Age: Major, Occ: Owner of the vehicle,
                                       2



      R/o H.No.21, Supreswar Nilaya, Rampur,
      Tq: & Dist: Raichur-584 101.

3.   The Branch Manager,
     The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.,
     Opp: SNT Talkies, Raichur-584 101.
                                        ... Respondents

(Sri. Govardhan Yadav, Advocate for R2;
 Sri. C.S. Kalburgi, Advocate for R3;
 V/O Dtd. 09.01.2014 notice to R1 is dispensed with)

       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to allow the appeal and modify the
judgment and award dated 11.09.2013 passed by the
I Addl. District Judge & MACT at Raichur in MVC
No.345/2011 and to enhance the compensation and fixed
to liability respondent No.3.

      This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                             JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants is absent. All

along, there is no representation on behalf of the

appellants.

This is an appeal, seeking enhancement and

challenging the liability. However, the appellants/

claimants have not shown any interest in prosecuting the

matter. The matter is pending since 2013. It is evident

that the appellants/claimants are not interested in

prosecuting the matter. Hence, the appeal stands

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG