Mithun vs Akshath K
2026 Latest Caselaw 3247 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mithun vs Akshath K on 15 April, 2026

                                       NC: 2026:KHC:20405
                                    MFA No. 1563 of 2020


HC-KAR




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                         BEFORE
      THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1563 OF 2020(MV-I)
BETWEEN:

MITHUN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O SHESHAPPA GOWDA,
R/O THENKILA HOUSE,
PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
PIN-574 201.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(V/O/DTD:25.07.2025-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT [ABSENT])

AND:

1.    AKSHATH.K
      NOW AGED 37 YEARS,
      S/O MONAPPA GOWDA.K,
      R/O 3-42, KANNIYA PANEMAJALU HOUSE,
      ARIYADKA POST AND VILLAGE,
      PUTTUR TALUK,
      DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 201.

2.    THE MANAGER,
      THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
      PRABHU BUILDING;
      OPP. ARUNA TALKIES,
      MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR,
      PUTTUR TALUK,
      DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 201.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    R1-SERVED)




                            1
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:20405
                                         MFA No. 1563 of 2020


HC-KAR




     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1844/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K, MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR
D.K., AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, PUTTUR D.K.,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The Court notice was directed to be served since there

was no appearance on behawlf of the appellant on

10.06.2025. Thereafter, by order dated 25.07.2025, the

service of notice was held to be sufficient. None has

appeared for the appellant on that day. None has

appeared today either.

2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in default and

for non-prosecution.

JUDGE

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30