IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.10459 of 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
B BASAPPA S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.75, 16TH MAIN, 5TH “A” CROSS, BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDESH P.NADIGER ADVOCATE FOR SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. P.V. GEORGE S/O MATHEW VARKEY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.121 MARINA, OMKARNAGAR 5TH CROSS, AREKERE GATE, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 075.
2. THE MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE MOTOR SERVICE HUB, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR KRISHIBHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. REZWAAN KHAN S/O RAFIQUALLA KHAN, RESIDING AT NO.39, 9TH MAIN ROAD GURRAPPANAPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 035 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1522/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE CITY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,02,286/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITIONS TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo stating that he does not wish to prosecute the above appeal. The reasons for the same is that, Respondent No.1 is already reported to be dead. After reporting the death of Respondent No.1, this Court by order dated 05.10.2015 directed the appellant to take steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.1 on record. The appellant was also required to take steps in respect of Respondent No.3 within two weeks by paying the necessary process-fee, if no steps are taken to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.1 within two weeks, the appeal against the aforesaid respondent shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.
2. Admittedly, steps have not been taken as per the order dated 05.10.2015. Therefore, the appeal is deemed to have dismissed as against Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3. So far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, in view of filing of this memo, the appeal as against Respondent No.2 also will have to be dismissed since the appellant has settled the matter with the wife of deceased Respondent No.1 and she is said to be the legal heir of deceased Respondent No.1.
Hence, the above submissions as well as the memo are placed on record and the matter stands disposed of in the above terms.
(Sd/-) JUDGE DH