Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10149 (KAR)

RIZWAN @ SYED RIZWAN v. C PERIYANNAN

MFA/3298/2016 · 2026-02-13

P Sree Sudha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8953 MFA No. 3298 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3298 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. RIZWAN @ SYED RIZWAN S/O JHONY BASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 2ND "E" CROS JAWELLERY STREET BANGALORE-56. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. C.PERIYANNAN S/O M.R. CHETTY GOUNDER AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.13, 4TH MAIN ROAD NEW THARAGPET BANGALORE-560 002. 2. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INS. CO. LTD. NO.45 & 46, "SUNDARAM TOWERS" WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 014. 3. MANJUNATHA FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR IN AGE R/AT KANANAYAKANAHALLI, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8953 MFA No. 3298 of 2016 KUNIGAL TQ., TUMKUR DIST-15. 4. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.1872M, 1ST FLOOR 20TH MAIN, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2022 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED IS U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2033/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CLAUSES, BENGALURU, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8953 MFA No. 3298 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the case of injury in the year 2016. Even on the last occasion, learned counsel for both the sides were absent and hence the matter is listed today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. As the appellant fails to evince any interest and pursue the appeal with due diligence, no purpose will serve in continuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40