- 1 - MFA No. 3241 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3241 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Office, Sarige Bhavan , Siddaiah Road, Double Road, Shantinagara, Bengaluru-27. And Now Represented By Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, By its Chief Law Officer, Bengaluru. …Appellant (By Smt. S. Nirmala.,Advocate) AND: Jahidul Islam S/o Raushan Ali, Aged 29 Years, R/o Tedhara Pathar Village, Baghbar-P S Barpeta-Sub Division, Barpeta District, Assam State Digitally signed by BHARATHIDEVI K KORLAHALLI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - MFA No. 3241 of 2021 Presently R/At Udupas Enterprises, No. 2609 15th Main, 9th Cross, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru - 560092. …Respondent This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act praying to modify the judgment and order dated: 29-08- 2020 passed in MVC.No.3839/2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) in the interest of justice and equity and grant such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case; This Appeal coming on for orders through Physical Hearing/video Conference this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant is neither present physically nor through Video Conference. 2. On 17.04.2023, this Court had made the following observations : “ Learned counsel for the appellant neither present physically nor through video conference. Even though, the notice to the respondent was ordered on 03.08.2021 but till date appellant has not ensured the service of notice to respondent. As such, finally, appellant is permitted to take fresh steps by furnishing correct, complete and present address of - 3 - MFA No. 3241 of 2021 respondent during the course of the day, failing which, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal itself, in case appropriate steps are not taken during the course of the day. List the matter on 19.04.2023.” In spite of the above observation, the appellant has neither taken steps to ensure service of notice upon the respondent nor shown any reasons for non-appearance or for not taking the steps. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution, as well as for not taking the steps. Sd/- JUDGE bk :List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14