- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14871 MFA No. 7410 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7410 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. BHARATHI W/O LATE MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. DEEPIKA M D/O LATE MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. NETRA M D/O LATE MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, 4. RESHMA M D/O LATE MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, 5. LAKSHMI W/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 6. MADAIAH S/O RAMABOVI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 93, APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.93, 2ND CROSS, SHANKARALINGEGOWDA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14871 MFA No. 7410 of 2023 RAMABAI NAGAR, GOORUR, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU(D) - 570 008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANTARAJ K.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.12, HOSAKERI, VALMIKINAGARA, BANNURU TOWN – 571 101. 2. THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GEN.INS.CO.LTD., MAHARAJA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE SUBRUB BUS STAND, NAZARBAD, BENGALURU NILGIRI ROAD, MYSURU – 570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2025) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.10.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.23/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14871 MFA No. 7410 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT None appears for the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is present. 3. It appears that even on the last date of hearing i.e., on 11.02.2026, there was no representation for the appellant. In view of the same, this Court had directed the Registry to list the matter on 10.03.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 4. Even today, there is no representation for the appellant. Hence, it appears that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30