ANANDAPPA S/O HAMPAYYA @ DODDAHAMPAYYA CHINKTHA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR
MFA/103252/2014 · 2025-10-28
Chillakur Sumalatha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37917 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37917 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14417 MFA No. 103252 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103252 OF 2014(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
ANANDAPPA S/O HAMPAYYA @ DODDAHAMPAYYA CHINKTHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KANCHAGAR ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD, (OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP.9Z/8434).
2.
PRAKASH P. GUPTA, AGE: 50 YEARS,
Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.31 11:00:39 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14417 MFA No. 103252 of 2014
MERCHANT NEHRU MARKET, RANEBENNUR, (OWNER OF THE MATADOR NO.KA.27/1052)
3.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT & AWARD OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR DATED 01.09.2014 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.551/2009 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14417 MFA No. 103252 of 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Sri B.S.Sangati, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not evincing any interest in the matter. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders. Having considered the submission that is made by
learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal, this Court is of the view that there are no reasons whatsoever to keep this appeal of the year 2014 pending. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1