(SRI. J.KISHORE v. SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, this appeal is dismissed for
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above, it appears that despite several opportunities, the appellant did not choose to prosecute the matter. Hence, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
Judgment
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4779 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. KISHORE. J S/O. JAGADISH. G, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO. 794, SAMRAT LAYOUT, AISHWARYA BAKERY ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, AREKERE, BENGALURU-560 096. (SRI. J.KISHORE- APPELLANT (ABSENT)) …APPELLANT SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
SMT. HEMA KULKARNI W/O. B. V. KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J. P. NAGAR 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
THE NEW INDIA ASSU. CO. LTD., BY GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE AT 2-B, UNITY BUILDINGS, ANNEXE P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), BENGALURU-560 027. (BY SRI. CHETAN JADHAV., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49062 MFA No. 4779 of 2019 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.3205/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,98,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. TILL REALIZATION. INTEREST IS NOT PAYABLE ON FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that this Court, vide order dated 28.08.2019, granted an interim order of stay subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the award amount in the MACT within a period of four weeks. However, though the matter was listed on several occasions, the appellant did not comply with the order of depositing 50% of the award amount.
2. Further, learned counsel, who was appearing for the appellant has filed a retirement memo stating that despite repeated requests, the appellant did not communicated with the counsel. This Court vide order dated 23.10.2025, permitted learned counsel appearing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49062 MFA No. 4779 of 2019 HC-KAR for the appellant to retire from the case. The Court notice issued to the appellant was returned with the endorsement 'no such person in the address'.
Operative part
In view of the above, it appears that despite several opportunities, the appellant did not choose to prosecute the matter. Hence, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this appeal is dismissed for
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.