Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 40288 (KAR)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. UMESH

MFA/6744/2022 · 2026-09-18

S Rachaiah

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010447972022 NC: 2026:KHC:50939 MFA No. 6744 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6744 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE: PRABHU BUILDING, OPP. ARUNA TALKIES MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UMESH, S/O SHEENA MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A PRATHAP NAGARA HOUSE, KADESHIVALAYA POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT – 574 325. Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010447972022 NC: 2026:KHC:50939 MFA No. 6744 of 2022 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O ABBAS BYARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A GADIYARU HOUSE, SWAGATH NAGAR, KEDILA VILLAGE, PERAMOGARU POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT – 574 220. …RESPONDENTS (R2 SERVED AND UNEPRESENTED) ---- THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2022, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1431/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.-XI AT D.K, MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K., 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010447972022 NC: 2026:KHC:50939 MFA No. 6744 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Case is called out. None appears for the appellant. It appears that the appellant is not interested to proceed with the case. Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. 2. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6