- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37002 MFA No. 1796 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1796 OF 2024(MV-I) BETWEEN: DORE BORAIAH, S/O. DORE OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. BACHABORNAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, AND DISTRICT - 577 501. …APPELLANT (BY MS. DEEPU B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHANTHA M., W/O. MUNIRAJU, MAJOR, RC OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING, REG NO. KA -51 /MK - 4055, R/O #135, HARAPANAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 105. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37002 MFA No. 1796 of 2024 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, COCO DHFL GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO. 82, 1ST FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, ABOVE IDBI BANK, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (R1- VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2024, NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.275/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37002 MFA No. 1796 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Ms.Deepu representing Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel on record for the appellant seeks time to move an application for service of notice upon respondent No.2 by way of substituted service. 2. On 01.08.2025 similar request was made. To give fair chance, time was granted. However, till now no such application is filed. 3. On 13.08.2024 a memo seeking dispensation of notice upon respondent No.1 was filed. The submission that was made is that no liability is fixed upon respondent No.1 and entire liability is upon respondent No.2 only. Considering the submission thus made, notice to respondent No.1 stood dispensed with. The appellant despite granting time did not choose to take steps for service of notice upon respondent No.2. Thus, there are no grounds to keep the appeal pending. 4. Thus appeal stands dismissed without costs. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1