SRI MOHAMMED YAKUB v. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
MFA/7292/2022 · 2026-01-30
Chillakur Sumalatha
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 49502 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 49502 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5314 MFA No. 7292 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7292 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAMMED YAKUB S/O LATE ELIYAZ G.M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT 2ND BLOCK BEHIND VENKATARAVANASWAMY MADHUGIRI (RURAL) TUMKUR - 572 132. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AVINASH P, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1.
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., IST FLOOR, SWATHI 32 C, 2ND MAIN, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094 POLICY NO.39010231166203825396 VALID FROM 10.12.2016 TO 09.12.2017 ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5314 MFA No. 7292 of 2022
HERO MOTO CORP, VERTICAL DO X 803-A 8TH FLOOR, KONNECTUS TOWER RAILWAY STATION NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2.
SRI. KAMBANNA D S/O DASAPPA MADAGANAHATTY RESIDING AT KASABA HOBLI MADUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
…RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. MAMATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7649/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU SCCH-7, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5314 MFA No. 7292 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT No representation on appellant's side on call.
2. Ms. Mamatha representing Sri.E.I.Sanmathi
learned counsel on record for respondent No.1 appears through video conference.
3. There was no representation on the appellant's side even on 13.11.2025 and 19.01.2026. Though the matter is listed on this day under the caption for dismissal yet there is no representation. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17