Rudragouda S/O Iranagouda vs Sri. Ramesh S/O Jyotiba Jadhav
2024 Latest Caselaw 5883 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Rudragouda S/O Iranagouda vs Sri. Ramesh S/O Jyotiba Jadhav on 27 February, 2024

                                                    -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:4591
                                                            MFA No. 101195 of 2016




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                  BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101195 OF 2016 (MV)

                      BETWEEN:

                      RUDRAGOUDA S/O. IRANAGOUDA
                      MUDIGOUDAR,
                      AGE: 38 Y EARS,
                      OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
                      R/O. AMARGOL VILLAGE,
                      TALUK: NAVALGUND.

                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. L. C. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.     SRI. RAMESH S/O. JYOTIBA JADHAV,
                             AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
         Digitally
         signed by
                             R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
         ROHAN
ROHAN    HADIMANI
HADIMANI T
                             NOW AT HUBBALLI.
T        Date:
         2024.02.29
         10:37:04
         +0530
                      2.     SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
                             E/8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                             SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN.

                      3.     SMT. BHEEMAVVA W/O. DYAMAPPA
                             @ DYAMANNA SHIDNEKOPPA,
                             AGE: 26 YEARS,
                             OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O: SHANWAD, TALWAR ONI,
                             TALUK: NAVALGUND,
                             NOW AT C/O. S. Y. GOVINDAN,
                                 -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:4591
                                       MFA No. 101195 of 2016




     RTD. J. E. BANASHANKARI EXTN,
     VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

4.   SRI. FAKIRAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA
     SHIDNEKOPPA,
     AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
     R/O.: SHANWAD, TALWAR ONI,
     TALUK: NAVALGUND,
     NOW AT C/O. S. Y. GOVINDAN,
     RTD. J. E. BANASHANKARI EXTN,
     VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

5.   SMT. KASTURI W/O. FAKKIRAPPA
     SHIDNEKOPPA,
     AGE: 55 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. SHANWAD, TALWAR ONI,
     TQ: NAVALGUND,
     NOW AT C/O. S. Y. GOVINDAN,
     RTD. J. E. BANASHANKARI EXTN,
     VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

6.   THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
     SRINATH COMPLEX,
     NCM, HUBLI.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.170 (1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
M.A.C.T HUBLI, IN M.V.C   NO.937/2013 DATED 26/11/2015, MAY
KINDLY BE SET ASIDED BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.


      THIS   APPEAL,   COMING    ON   FOR   ORDERS,   THIS   DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:4591
                                       MFA No. 101195 of 2016




                             ORDER

This Court vide order dated 30.08.2017 dismissed the

appeal for non-compliance of office objections. Subsequently,

vide order dated 01.03.2018 by condoning delay of 76 days.

The order dated 30.08.2017 was recalled subject to payment of

cost of Rs.500/- to the Advocates' Association Library Fund,

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.

2. Today the matter is listed for non deposit of the

amount as well as for non-compliance of office objections.

3. Matter was called in the morning session as well as

in the afternoon session. There is no representation for the

appellant. It appears that, the appellant is not interested in

prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE RKM