✦ Karnataka High Court

SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA R v. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY D

MFA No. 588 of 2020UMESH M ADIGA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

As requested in the Memo, appeal is dismissed as

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA R S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGE 51 YEARS, R/O NO.04-06, MARUTHI NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, BHEL MINI COLONY, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057. (BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY D S/O DASAPPA, NO.79/P, RAILWAY QUARTERS, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. &APPELLANT

2.

MUTHURAJA M S/O MUTHURAYAPPA, NO.27, HUNASEPALYA, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

3.

SRI. PRAKASH S/O MUDDA HANUMAIAH, R/AT NO.314, HUNASEPALYA, HULKUNTE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. &RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.725/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH- 4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54557 MFA No. 588 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Advocate for the appellant present.

2. Memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record.

Operative part

3. As requested in the Memo, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: As requested in the Memo, appeal is dismissed as

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. MFA No. 588 of 2020). ← Search more judgments