- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39282 MFA No. 1077 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1077 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DHANALAKSMI @ GEETHA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SACHIN, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 3. MASTER DHANUSH, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY, SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, @ GEETHA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, BEING NATURAL MOTHER AS GUARDIAN, ALL ARE R/O LAXMIDEVARAHALLI, DHANALAKSHMI ESTATE, SULEKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI: .H.T. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C. CHIKAMAGALORE DIVISION, CHIKAMGALORE 2. SMT. LAKSHMMA, W/O LATE GIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39282 MFA No. 1077 of 2018 R/O LAMIDEVARAHALLI, DHANALAXMI ESTATE, SULEKERE HOBLI, KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 4. LOKESWARI @ RANI, D/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 5. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 6. RAGHU S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 ARE R/O DASEGOWDA STREET, KOTE, HOLENARSHIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 210 7. SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O AKANAPURA VILLAGE, KATTYA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: .K. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI: SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.84/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND MEMBER, MACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39282 MFA No. 1077 of 2018 JUDGMENT On 02.11.2023, when the matter came up before this Court for orders, as there was no representation on behalf the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter was listed for 'Dismissal' today. 2. Today also, there is no representation. As per the office objection, so far, to issue notice to respondent No.2 for the second time and to respondent No.7 for the first time, the appellant has not taken any steps. 3. This is an appeal of the year 2017. Even till now no steps are being taken by the appellant and apart from that even when the matter posted under the caption for 'dismissal', there is no appearance. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- JUDGE BH