- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29805 MFA No. 1007 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: D.R. RAJANNA, S/O REDDAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT DUGGAANAKUNTE VILLAGE, GOWNIPALLI POST, SRINIVASPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …APPELLANT (BY MISS. VETTY LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: 1. C. PRADEEP, S/O LATE CHINNAPALLA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT EDGAH ROAD, NEAR THE HOUSE OF FLOWER CHAND PASHA GHAFFAR KHAN MOHALLA, RESIDING AT 3RD WARD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. 2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29805 MFA No. 1007 of 2024 S.M. TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 200/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KOLAR, (ITINERATING AT SRINIVASAPURA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,72,229/- WITH INTEREST ON RS. 5,42,229/- (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS. 30,000/- AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Ms. Vetty Lakshmi appears through video conference representing Sri. Vasanthappa learned counsel on record for the appellant seeks time to comply the office objection. The appeal was filed in the month of February 2024 and till now office objection is not complied. Having - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29805 MFA No. 1007 of 2024 obtained an order of stay of the execution of the impugned award way back in the month of April 2024, the appellant neither deposited 50% of the award amount as ordered nor complied the office objection. These facts reveals gross negligence on part of the appellant in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance of office objection. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK