Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 59917 (KAR)

PARAMESH S/O. GUDDAPPA LAMANI v. LAXMIBAI HANUMANT LAMANI

MFA/21887/2013 · 2025-11-26

Chillakur Sumalatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16412 MFA No. 21887 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21887 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: PARAMESH S/O. GUDDAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. ADRALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.J. APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAXMIBAI HANUMANT LAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ADRALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISION OFFICE, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG SITTING AT LAXMESHWAR IN MVC NO.255/2005 DATED 09-01-2012 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16412 MFA No. 21887 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) No representation on respondent’s side on call. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag sitting at Laxmeshwar in MVC 255 of 2005 dated 09.01.2012. The claimant therein presented the appeal. 3. On this day, Sri N.J.Appannanavar, learned counsel for the appellant states that he had gone through the contents of the impugned order meticulously and thereby found no grounds to put-forth in this appeal. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders. 4. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has no grounds to argue, this Court is of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Thereby the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34