- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37496 MFA No. 869 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2018 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: SRI LOKESH G S/O M GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.33, ADHILAKSHMI NILAYA GROUND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN ROAD SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 10 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH BHAPAT, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS 46 WHITES ROAD, ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI - 600 014 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O VEERANNA P, AGED MAJOR NO.1045, 6TH MAIN, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS LAKSHMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. LIINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37496 MFA No. 869 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3048/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, ADDITIONAL MACT, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGLAURU, REJECTING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is present. 3. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 17.11.2015 passed in MVC No.3048/2014, by the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore (hereinafter referred has 'Tribunal' for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37496 MFA No. 869 of 2018 4. The petitioner filed a claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum for the damage caused to his vehicle i.e., Honda Civic motor car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MJ-1678. He contended that he incurred an amount of Rs.2,29,150/- towards repair charges and also claimed Rs.20,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony. Though he produced documents marked as Exs.P.8 & 9 in support of the claim, he failed to examine the author of the said documents. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the application. 5. On 01.08.2025, the appellant did not appear. In fact, the matter was already listed ‘for dismissal’ on 28.03.2024, and thereafter, on 01.08.2025 as well as today, the learned counsel for the appellant did not turn- up. The appellant has not prosecuted the litigation with due diligence. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing this appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37496 MFA No. 869 of 2018 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK