- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503122016 NC: 2026:KHC:49378 MFA No. 5240 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5240 OF 2016(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SUNDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE NAGARAJA SHETTY, 2. SMT.SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O R.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, 3. SMT.PADMALATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNA, 4. KUM.NITHYASHREE AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/O LATE KRISHNA, MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. PADMALATHA 3RD APPELLANT HEREIN. ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/A 5TH CROSS, B.NAGASANDRA, YEMMALUR POST, BANGALORE - 560 037. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI RAMESH A., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503122016 NC: 2026:KHC:49378 MFA No. 5240 of 2016 AND: 1. SRI RAJU S/O PUTTAVENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A BASAYANNAPURA VILLAGE, HONGALA HOBLI, GUNDALPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 521 111. 2. SRI PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJA SHETTY, R/A BEGUR VILLAGE, GUNDALPETE TALUK - 521 111. 3. SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJA SHETTY, R/A BEGUR VILLAGE, GUNDALPETE TALUK - 521 111. 4. SRI PRASANTH N., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJA SHETTY, R/A BEGUR VILLAGE, GUNDALPETE TALUK - 521 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K R RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3 & R4 - NOTICE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2607/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503122016 NC: 2026:KHC:49378 MFA No. 5240 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, at both instances, learned counsel for respondent no.1 was present and there is no representation on behalf of appellants. 2. On 03.09.2026, taking note of no representation on behalf of appellants, this Court had directed matter to be listed for dismissal on 10.09.2026. Continued absence would show that appellants are not diligent in pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7