- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536732013 NC: 2026:KHC:49287 MFA No. 3652 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3652 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. MR HARISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SIDDE GOWDA, R/A. NO.23, SHARADANAGAR CHUNCHGHATTA MAIN ROAD KONANAKUNTE CROSS BANGALORE - 560 068. 2. MR.NAGARAJU M.N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NANJE GOWDA, R/A. M. MANIYAMBAL VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 117. …APPELLANTS AND: 1. SMT.CHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY, 2. KUMARI CHANDANA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, D/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY, 3. KUMARI SNEHA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, D/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536732013 NC: 2026:KHC:49287 MFA No. 3652 of 2013 4. SMT.MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNI REDDY, THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 3 ARE MINORS REP BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.CHINNAMMA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PATTAREDDY PALYA VILLAGE KAGGALIPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 082. …RESPONDENTS (BY R1 - NOTICE SERVED; V/C/O DTD 31.05.2019 R1 TO R3 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R4; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.5887/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 11TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,06,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536732013 NC: 2026:KHC:49287 MFA No. 3652 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT On ground that appellants were not responding, a memo for retirement was filed by counsel for appellants. After its acceptance on 21.03.2024, appellants appeared and sought time to engage counsel, but failed to do so. As per order dated 30.06.2026, Court notice issued to appellants returned with postal shara as address of appellant no.1 was 'insufficient' and appellant no.2 was 'not residing in given address'. Thus, despite having knowledge of retirement of counsel, failure to appoint counsel or appear and prosecute matter, would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2