Mr Deepak Mandalik vs Mr Kishore
2023 Latest Caselaw 2031 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                  MFA No. 2196 of 2022




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
                                        BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2022 (MV-I)


               BETWEEN:
               MR DEEPAK MANDALIK
               S/O LATE RAJARAM MANDALIK
               AGED 46 YEARS
               R/AT C/O SANJEEV
               BEHIND TVS SHOW ROOM
               HOSABETTU, KULAI
               MANGALURU 575091
                                                              ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
               AND:
               1. MR KISHORE
                  S/O CHANRASHAS
                  AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                  RA/T MAYANTHIKAL HOUSE
Digitally         BYPASS ROAD, BANTWAL
signed by
VEENA             KASBA, BANTWAL TQ 574219
KUMARI B
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka   2.   CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE
                    1ST FLOOR, S.R. COMPLEX
                    BENDOREWELL, MANGALURU 575002

                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF
               MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.08.10.2021 IN
               MVC NO.846/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
               AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K. MANGALURU,
               DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
                                 -2-
                                         MFA No. 2196 of 2022




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant is not present.

2. Inspite of ordering the issuance of notice as long

back as 26.05.2022 and further granting time on 17.06.2022,

appellant till date has not taken steps against the respondents.

This act of not taking steps results in adding additional burden

to the respondents to pay interest on the enhanced amount, if

any, in case appellant succeeds in this appeal, even for the

period of not taking steps at the earliest.

3. No reasons are forthcoming for non-taking steps.

Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution and

for not taking steps.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK