Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4899 (KAR)

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. SHRI.LAKKAPPA S/O SATYAPPA BADACHI

MFA/101333/2020 · 2025-03-07

Umesh M Adiga

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4395 MFA No. 101333 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101333 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING, 1732, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, NOW BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. LAKKAPPA S/O. SATYAPPA BADACHI, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, (NOW NIL), R/O. BEDAR GALLI, SHEDBAL, TQ: ATHANIK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. APPAYYA S/O. YALLAPPA MANNIKERI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. A/P: MALADINNI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2019 IN M.V.C NO.2302/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT BELAGAVI, SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO FASTENING THE QUANTUM ON THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2, THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4395 MFA No. 101333 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for short accommodation. Already sufficient opportunity is granted to comply with the office objections. This appeal is of the year 2020 and the statutory deposit is also not made. 2. Considering these facts, there no justifiable reasons for adjournment. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the office objections. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE RHR/- CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0