Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 27117 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45705
MFA No. 2203 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2203 OF 2021(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARASE GOWDA
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O ARASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT: KASAGHATTA
DODDAHEJJAJI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN-562 204.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. B.P. SUPREETH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
by AASEEFA AND:
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
COURT OF KRISHI BHAVAN,
KARNATAKA
NEXT TO MAGISTRATE COURT,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP BY ITS MANAGER
2. MR. TATTAPU RAMANA REDDY,
S/O. RAMANA REDDY
NO.15-245, NEHRUNAGAR,
GUDUR, ANDHRAPRADESH,
PIN-524101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45705
MFA No. 2203 of 2021
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
D O -III MAHALAKSHMI COMPLEX,
M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
4. MR. BABU,
S/O KRISHANPPA,
NO.6 NAGENAHALLI,
YELAHAKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
5. MR. SHIVA KUMAR
S/O. MARIYAPPA,
NO.75, BIDALURU,
NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. K. SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2, R4 AND R5- SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6262/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRL.
MACT, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45705
MFA No. 2203 of 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
As it was reported that Sri.Shivakumar.P learned counsel
on record for the appellants is no more, this Court directed
Registry to send notice to the appellants giving intimation to
them to pursue the matter. Notice thus sent to the appellant
Nos.1 and 2 was duly served. However, appellant Nos.1 and 2
failed to make their appearance either in person or through
their appointed counsel. This reveals that the appellants are not
interested to pursue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
DS CT:TSM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!