- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38242 MFA No. 2222 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2222 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HEERAVATHI R. MENDON W/O SHRI. RAJA R. MENDON AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT, JONU HOUSE, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK KULAI POST, MANGALORE. 2. SMT. RESHMA HARISH KARKERA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT, JONU HOUSE, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK KULAI POST, MANGALORE. 3. MASTER NIHAL AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS S/O LATE HARISH KARKERA MINOR, REPRESENTED BY, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. RESHMA HARISH, RESIDING AT, JONU HOUSE NEAR, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, KULAI POST, MANGALORE. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38242 MFA No. 2222 of 2014 4. MASTER NISHAL AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, S/O LATE HARISH KARKERA MINOR, REPRESENTED BY, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. RESHMA HARISH, RESIDING AT, JONU HOUSE, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, KULAI POST, MANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) AND: 1. PONNU SWAMY M S/O SHRI. E. MARAPPA GOUNDAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT, KUMERA HOUSE, KALLUGUNDISAMPAJE POST, SULLIA TALUK D.K - 574 239. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 76-A,PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL TAMILNADU-637 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VAKALATH NOT FILED), VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2021, APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1577/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-4, D.K., MANGALORE, C/c. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38242 MFA No. 2222 of 2014 COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONW, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT There is no representation for the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is present. On perusal of the order sheet, on none of the hearing dates there was representation on behalf of the appellant. Even a copy of the appeal memo was served on the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The appeal was dismissed against respondent No.1 for non-taking of the steps. Matter is pending for more than 10 years without any progress. Looking to all these facts, it appears the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18