- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36913 MFA No. 7315 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7315 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYALAKSHMI W/O SOMASHARAPPA AGED ABIOUT 51 YEAWRS, RESIDENT OF KHAIRA VILLAGE, GILLALAGUNDI POST, ANANDAPURAM HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST. 2. SRI. SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O MASTHYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF KHAIRA VILLAGE, GILLALAGUNDI POST, ANANDAPURAM HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST. 3. SRI. ANIL KUMAR S/O SOMASHEKHARALPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF KHAIRA VILLAGE, GILLALAGUNDI POST, ANANDAPURAM HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.JAYALAKSHMI ADV FOR A1 SRI.SOMASHEKHARAPPA FOR A2 SRI.ANIL KUMAR ADV FOR A3) AND: 1. SRI BHARATH S/O DAMODHAR ACHAR AGE MAJOR R/O GOPALAGOWDA NAGAR SAGAR TOWN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36913 MFA No. 7315 of 2016 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O BANGAR SHET AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS, NEHARUNAGAR SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD P.B. NO.21, J.C. ROAD SAGAR-577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 SD) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.341/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR, 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the common award of the Tribunal in MVC.Nos.338/2015 and 331/2015 dated 08.03.2016. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36913 MFA No. 7315 of 2016 2. Both the claimants sustained injuries and filed claim applications claiming compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- and Rs.55,50,000/-, respectively. The tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded Rs.3,60,680/- and 8,01,000/-, respectively. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred appeal as the counsel was no more, notice was ordered to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and it was served upon them on 02.07.2025 but they did not turn up, they have not engaged any other counsel or made any representation in person and they failed to pursue the litigation with due diligence. Hence, no purpose is served in continuing the appeal, and thus appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4