Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57986 (KAR)

SWAMY L P v. MOHAN KUMAR H M

MFA/33/2023 · 2025-07-22

Chillakur Sumalatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27466 MFA No. 33 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SWAMY L.P, S/O PUTTA, AGED 22 YEARS, RA/T LINGANAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 113, 4TH CROSS, VIJIAYANAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. MOHAN KUMAR H.M, S/O MAHADEVA M, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 467, SATAGAHALLI LAYOUT, NEAR VENAKATARAMANA TEMPLE, MYUSRU - 570 029. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HUCCHAOHANDADODDI VILLAGE TAGACHAGERE POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK - 562 160. 2. THE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27466 MFA No. 33 of 2023 LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 287/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT No representation on appellant's side on call. Sri. K. Suresh appears through video conference and submits that the appellant failed to serve copies of appeal papers upon him and therefore he could not file vakalath for respondent No.2. There was no representation on appellant's side even on 11.06.2025 and 27.06.2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27466 MFA No. 33 of 2023 The appellant did not choose to furnish the requisites for sending notice to respondent No.1. Though the matter is listed under the caption for dismissal, yet there is no representation. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK