CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION v. CHIKKALINGAIAH
MFA/5166/2020 · 2026-06-05
Rajesh Rai K
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19749 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19749 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26958 MFA No. 5166 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5166 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN:
CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION MYSUGAR CO. LTD., PREMISES & GANADALU GODOWN, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GODOWN MANAGER, SURESH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.S BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CHIKKALINGAIAH S/O. LATE DODDABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1703/C, OLD POST, OFFICE ROAD, 1ST CROSS, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA-571 401.
2.
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE, NEAR NR CIRCLE, HASSAN-573 201.
BY ITS MANAGER
3.
SRI. H. M. PRAKASH S/O. MOOGANNAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26958 MFA No. 5166 of 2020 LORRY OWNER, R/AT HARADURUHALLI VILLAGE, GANJALAGUDU POST, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
4.
SRI. MANJESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/AT MARUTHI TRANSPORT, MANDYA CITY CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, GANADALU, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2017 PASSED IN ECA.NO.76/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 7,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. ON IT FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT (i.e.06.08.2013) TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26958 MFA No. 5166 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 is dead and he is unable to get any information in respect of legal representatives of deceased - respondent No.1.
In view of the above, the appeal abates against respondent No.1. Consequently, the appeal is abated. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1