- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37495 MFA No. 905 of 2016 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. 905 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. PUTTAMADAIAH S/O LATE KEMPANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DIST - 571 405 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH V.N, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. ZULFIKAR AHMED S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8/1 (OLD NO.250/8), 1TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 027. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNDARAM TOWER, 46TH WHITES ROAD, RAYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37495 MFA No. 905 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.444/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C/c ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF 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 respondent No.1 is present. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 16.11.2015 passed in MVC No.444/2012, by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Mandya (hereinafter referred has 'Tribunal' for short). 2. The petitioner/injured claimant had filed application before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37495 MFA No. 905 of 2016 The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal was preferred on 01.02.2016. Though learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 & 2 were present on 08.09.2025, but the learned counsel for the appellant did not turn-up. Accordingly, the matter was listed today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, learned counsel for the appellant is not present before this Court. 4. Hence, the appellant has not pursued the matter with due diligence, no purpose would be served in continuing this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK