Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20125 (KAR)

SMT RANGAMMA v. SRI MADHU K T @ MADHUSUDAN

MFA/7936/2017 · 2026-06-09

P Sree Sudha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27769 MFA No. 7936 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7936 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O LATE RANGADASAIAH, R/AT HIREDODDAVADI VILLAGE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MADHU K.T @ MADHUSUDAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O. SRI. THIMMARAJU, R/AT NO.PATHAAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. NOW RESIDING AT C/O GIRISH NEAR NATIONAL SCHOOL, YELLAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. SRI. BASAVESWARA P.S. S/O SIDDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT HIREDODDAVADI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27769 MFA No. 7936 of 2017 URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES, M.G.ROAD, TUMKUR CITY - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1147/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,30,334.35/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant is present and submits that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and therefore, seeks dismissal of the appeal as having become infructuous. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27769 MFA No. 7936 of 2017 2. However, the office has raised an objection on the ground that the appellant's signature is not found on the memo. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to comply with the said office objection. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and considering that the matter has been settled between the parties, the appeal is dismissed as settled. 4. Accordingly, upon compliance with the Office objection, the statutory deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant. 5. The Registry is directed to remit the balance statutory amount to the concerned MACT in accordance with law. All pending I.As., stand closed in view of the disposal of the main appeal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11