BETWEEN v. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Judgment
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SWAMY L.P, S/O PUTTA, AGED 22 YEARS, RA/T LINGANAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 113, 4TH CROSS, VIJIAYANAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) …APPELLANT AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
MOHAN KUMAR H.M, S/O MAHADEVA M, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 467, SATAGAHALLI LAYOUT, NEAR VENAKATARAMANA TEMPLE, MYUSRU - 570 029. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HUCCHAOHANDADODDI VILLAGE TAGACHAGERE POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK - 562 160.
THE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27466 MFA No. 33 of 2023 HC-KAR LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 287/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, RAMANAGARA, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT No representation on appellant's side on call. Sri. K. Suresh appears through video conference and submits that the appellant failed to serve copies of appeal papers upon him and therefore he could not file vakalath for respondent No.2. There was no representation on appellant's side even on
Operative part
11.06.2025 and 27.06.2025. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27466 MFA No. 33 of 2023 HC-KAR The appellant did not choose to furnish the requisites for sending notice to respondent No.1. Though the matter is listed 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.: 29 CT: BHK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution
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.