IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA. MFA No.10140 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. A.REKHA AGED 32 YEARS W/O. LATE MANJUNATHA 2. KUM. G.M.ASHIKA AGED 12 YEARS D/O. LATE MANJUNATH 3. MASTER G.M.ASHWIN AGED 9 YEARS S/O. LATE MANJUNATH 4. KUM. G.M.ASHITHA AGED 8 YEARS D/O. MANJUNATH APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.A.REKHA 5. SRI MOODALAIAH @ B.M.KRISHNAPPA AGED 65 YEARS FATHER OF LATE BOJAIAH 6. SMT. B.H.RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O. MOODALAIAH SINCE DECEASED ABETTED MOTHER OF DECEASED MANJUNATH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF POLLIBETTA TOWN VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THANGARAJU T.A S/O. ANDAN ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR R/O. NAKOOR SIRANGALA KANBAIL POST SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT (SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) a) ANDAN MAJOR FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN (FATHER OF DECEASED THANGARAJU) b) SMT. RAMAYAMMA MAJOR W/O. ANDAN (MOTHER OF DECEASED THANGARAJU) BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF ESHWAR ESTATE NAKOOR SIRANGALA KANBAIL POST SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD COLLEGE ROAD MADIKERI TOWN KODAGU DISTRICT 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD 363, SRI HARI COMPLEX SEETHAVILAS ROAD MYSORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ABDUL KHADER, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/O/DT.20.04.2015, APPEAL AGAINST R1(a) & R1(b) STANDS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.09.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.168/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), MACT, VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSTION AND SEEKING ENHANCECEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N.K. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:J U D G M E N T:
Since the liability has been fastened on respondent No.1(a) and (b) and since no steps have been taken in respect of them, inspite of granting sufficient time, the appeal stands dismissed in view of the order dated 20.04.2015.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HJ