- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25952 MFA No. 5327 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5327 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. MUSTHAFA P @ MUSTHU S/O P.M. HAMSA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.551, NELLIAHUDIKERI VILLAGE SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JUNAID P.K, S/O KHADER P.S, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KARADIGODU VILLAGE, VIA SIDDAPURA, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 2. SRI. P.A. ABDULLA S/O AHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT P.A. TRADERS NELLIAHUDIKERI VILLAGE, SIDDAPURA, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO.324/1D ZUBAIDA ROAD Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25952 MFA No. 5327 of 2021 CHAMARAJANAGAR MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 025. POLICY VALID FROM 20-10-2017 TO 21/10/2018. 4. MRS. DEEPIKA W/O JAGADEESHA D NERUGALALE VILLAGE, SOMWARPET, NORTH KODAGU - 571 236. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.5/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,16,768/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Sri. Harsha representing Sri. Sachin.B.S., learned counsel on record for the appellant is present. 2. As per office endorsement, the appellant did not comply the office objections yet. Also costs as ordered were not paid. 3. Record discloses that the appellant did not choose to comply the office objections and therefore the appeal stood dismissed on 06.04.2023. Thereafter, the appellant filed two - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25952 MFA No. 5327 of 2021 applications, one for condoning the delay in filing an application for restoration of the appeal and another application seeking to restore the appeal on file. 4. Both the applications were allowed by order dated 23.01.2024 on costs of Rs.2,500/- to be payable to Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust and also with a direction to comply the office objections. However, the appellant neither paid the costs nor complied the office objections. All these facts reveals gross negligence on part of the appellant in pursuing the matter. 5. This Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to grant further time. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance of office objections and also for non payment of costs. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK