Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8530 Kant
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37002
MFA No. 1796 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1796 OF 2024(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DORE BORAIAH,
S/O. DORE OBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O. BACHABORNAHATTI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
AND DISTRICT - 577 501.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. DEEPU B.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA AND:
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH 1. SMT. SHANTHA M.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA W/O. MUNIRAJU,
MAJOR,
RC OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING,
REG NO. KA -51 /MK - 4055,
R/O #135, HARAPANAHALLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 105.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37002
MFA No. 1796 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
COCO DHFL GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
NO. 82, 1ST FLOOR,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
ABOVE IDBI BANK, 2ND BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1- VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2024,
NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED IN
MVC NO.275/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37002
MFA No. 1796 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Ms.Deepu representing Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel on
record for the appellant seeks time to move an application for
service of notice upon respondent No.2 by way of substituted
service.
2. On 01.08.2025 similar request was made. To give
fair chance, time was granted. However, till now no such
application is filed.
3. On 13.08.2024 a memo seeking dispensation of
notice upon respondent No.1 was filed. The submission that
was made is that no liability is fixed upon respondent No.1 and
entire liability is upon respondent No.2 only. Considering the
submission thus made, notice to respondent No.1 stood
dispensed with. The appellant despite granting time did not
choose to take steps for service of notice upon respondent
No.2. Thus, there are no grounds to keep the appeal pending.
4. Thus appeal stands dismissed without costs.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP
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!