Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33067 (KAR)

A. LOKANATHAN v. UMESH N R

MFA/2622/2017 · 2026-07-29

P Sree Sudha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010544132017 NC: 2026:KHC:40138 MFA No. 2622 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2622 OF 2017(MV-I) BETWEEN: A. LOKANATHAN @ LOKANATHAN S/O ANNAMALAI, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT # 199, SAI MEDO LAYOUT, BEHIND SAI SADH GURU COLLEGE, KUDLU VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 068 AND ALSO R/AT NO.E/23/9/689C, VEERASETTYHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 090. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. UMESH N R S/O RANGAPPA, MAJOR, NO.49, 3RD MAIN ROAD, JOGUPALYA, HALASUR (ULSOOR) BANGALORE - 560 008. 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010544132017 NC: 2026:KHC:40138 MFA No. 2622 of 2017 NO.18, 6TH FLOOR, NEAR KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 03.07.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2745/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J., BENGALURU, 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the respondent is present. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. 3. On 21.07.2026, as the appellant was absent, this matter was listed under the caption "For Dismissal" for - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010544132017 NC: 2026:KHC:40138 MFA No. 2622 of 2017 today. Even today, there is no representation either by the learned counsel or by the appellant. 4. This appeal is filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation. However, he has failed to pursue the litigation with due diligence. Even after the matter was listed under the caption "For Dismissal", there is no representation. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26