Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14324 (KAR)

UDAY R DEVADIGA v. SMT KAMALA

MFA/5253/2022 · 2026-02-12

D K Singh, S Rachaiah

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8759-DB MFA No. 5253 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5253 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. UDAY R DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. SRI. RAMA DEVADIGA, R/AT. SRI. DURGA NIVASA, PUNAR ABBETTU, BELMAN POST AND VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, PIN – 574 104. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJU BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KAMALA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O LATE MAILAPPA, 2. MASTER PRAVEEN AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8759-DB MFA No. 5253 of 2022 3. MASTER GOUTHAM AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR CHILDREN OF LATE MAILAPPA REP. BY THEIR MOTHER/ NEXT FRIEND SMT. KAMALA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT 3-80/2, PILIKALA HOUSE, NEKKARE, NERIYA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 228. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. UDUPI BRANCH, ROYAL AVENUE BUILDING, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, DIANA CIRCLE, UDUPI – 576 225. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.12.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.626/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM, KARKALA, UDUPI AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8759-DB MFA No. 5253 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and award dated 12.11.2021 passed in MVC No.626 of 2020. 2. This Court, vide order dated on 07.09.2022, directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount with interest before the Court to maintain the appeal. Till date, the said order has not been complied with. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. Pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8