- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010165542013 NC: 2026:KHC:52395 MFA No. 5180 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5180 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: RICHARD LOBO S/O JOHN LOBO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O.RAXIDI VILLAGE AND ESTATE KYAMANAHALLI POST HANBALA HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN - 873 165. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUNITHA W/O LATE HARISH AGE: MAJOR R/O.GULLANPET POST, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 2. SMT GIRIJA W/O VITTAL AGE: MAJOR RAXIDI VILLAGE AND ESTATE KYAMANAHALLI POST HANBALA HOBLI SAKLESHPURA HASSAN - 873 165. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010165542013 NC: 2026:KHC:52395 MFA No. 5180 of 2013 3. 4. SRI. VITTAL S/O BABU AGE: MAJOR RAXIDI VILLAGE AND ESTATE KYAMANAHALLI POST HANBALA HOBLI SAKLESHPURA HASSAN - 873 165. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. CHIKMAGALORU BRANCH, CHIKMAGALOORU, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER – 577 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 – NOTICE SERVED UNREPRESENTED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.09.2026, APPEAL IS DISMISSED AGAINST R1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.03.2020, R2 IS TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF W.C. ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2013 IN CASE NO.Kaa.Pa.Kaa(F) 04/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-2, CHICKMAGALUR, TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO PAY A SUM OF Rs.2,49,771/- COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT 12% AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010165542013 NC: 2026:KHC:52395 MFA No. 5180 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. None appears for appellant. 2. On 25.08.2026, it was noted that service of notice on respondent no.1 through regular mode was unsuccessful. Appellant was directed to file an application for substituted service. On 08.09.2026, further time was granted for taking steps. Despite same, since no steps were taken, appeal was dismissed against respondent no.1 on 17.09.2026. 3. Respondent no.1 is one of the claimants. As appeal is dismissed against one of the claimants, it cannot survive against others. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1