Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32723 (KAR)

SMT PARVATHAMMA v. SRI SADANANDA N C

MFA/5472/2022 · 2026-07-28

Rajesh Rai K

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347542022 NC: 2026:KHC:39318 MFA No. 5472 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5472 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVALINGASWAMY HIRERMATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O DEVANOOR VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT NOW R/AT SATHYAMANGALA ROAD SIRA GATE TUMAKURU CITY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LOKESH KUMAR K S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SADANANDA N C S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR SMT GEETHA W/O LATE SADANANDA N C AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS TEACHER WORKING AT GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL BYALADALU VILLAGE Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347542022 NC: 2026:KHC:39318 MFA No. 5472 of 2022 NIDAGHATTA POST SAKARAYAPATTANA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR T.G.M.A. BUILDING J.C.ROAD TUMAKURU CITY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H B RUDRESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B S UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.09.2017 IN MVC NO.85/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, AMACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347542022 NC: 2026:KHC:39318 MFA No. 5472 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is listed on 27.07.2026, there was no representation for the appellant. Hence, the appeal is posted today, as a last chance. However, today also there is no representation for the appellant or her counsel even on the second call and since the appeal is of the year 2022, it could be presumed that the appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19