Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27735 (KAR)

SMT K NALINA v. G VIRUPAKSHAPPA

MFA/6108/2014 · 2025-06-10

Umesh M Adiga

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19564 MFA No. 6108 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6108 OF 2014(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.K.NALINA W/O LATE G.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. MASTER. MANJUNATH S/O LATE.G.LOKESH PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS (SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER) FIRST APPELLANT BOTH ARE R/AT 16TH CROSS OLD D.D.P.I. OFFICE ROAD BASAVESHWARA MESS S.S.PURAM, TUMKUR-572 102. …APPELLANTS (SMT. K.NALINA, APPELLANT (ABSENT)) AND: 1. G.VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED MAJOR R/OF C.NANDIHALLI VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216. 2. GURUBASAVANNA S/O SHIVANNA AGED MAJOR Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19564 MFA No. 6108 of 2014 RESIDENT OF M.M.KAVAL CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-06-6672) 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE VIVEKANANDA ROAD TUMKUR-1. 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE. GANGANNA AGED MAJOR R/OF C.NANDIHALLI VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH; SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 - SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1202/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, AT TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19564 MFA No. 6108 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants are called out. Absent. No representation. Inspite of service of notice issued by the advocate, they have not engaged any advocate. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Send back the trial Court records to the concerned trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2