SOMASHEKAR S/O SHANTAVEERAPPA KATAGI v. NAGALINGARADDI S/O VENKARADDI METI
MFA/102732/2016 · 2026-01-05
K Manmadha Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 53072 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 53072 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:18 MFA No. 102732 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102732 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
SOMASHEKAR S/O SHANTAVEERAPPA KATAGI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCL: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PASHUPATIHAL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L.M. KURAHATTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GALAGANATH F.R., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT-ABSENT)
AND:
1.
NAGALINGARADDI S/O VENKARADDI METI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANU KULAKARNI BUILDING, MASARI, GADAG.
2.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., SREENATH COMPLEX, NEW NORTH TRAFFIC POLICE, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CLAIM AND GRANT REASONABLE COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,65,000/- WITH COSTS AND PROPER INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION OF AWARD AMOUNT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND ACCORDINGLY MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 07.05.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT HUBLI IN MVC NO.947/2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ANY OTHER RELIEFS MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2026.01.06 10:14:32 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:18 MFA No. 102732 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel Sri. L.M. Kurahatti, the proxy counsel appearing for the appellant, represented the matter and sought time. However, on perusal of the order sheet, it appears that this Court has already granted ample opportunities to the appellant for hearing the matter. Though the matter was posted for dismissal, the appellant’s counsel has not appeared and is represented only by a proxy counsel, which is not proper. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31