IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.4864 OF 2015 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.4865 OF 2015 IN M.F.A. NO.4864/2015 BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNAIAH S., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O SANJEEVARAYAPPA, R/O HARTHIKOTE VILLAGE, IMANGALA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE – NO REPRESENTATION) AND:
1. S.RAMU, 32 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA, R/O RANGANAYAKANA ROPPA, D.V.HALLI POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132.
2. THE ICICI LOMBARD, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE BOMBAY.
SERVICE ADDRESS:
THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, II FLOOR, PRAJAPRAGATHI BUILDING, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101. BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.49/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT – XII, AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.4865/2015 BETWEEN:
M.L.RAGHUSHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH, R/O THALAKU VILLAGE – 577 522 (AT POST), CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE – NO REPRESENTATION) AND:
1. S.RAMU, 32 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA, R/O RANGANAYAKANA ROPPA, D.V.HALLI POST – 572 132, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ICICI LOMBARD, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE BOMBAY.
SERVICE ADDRESS:
THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, II FLOOR, PRAJAPRAGATHI BUILDING, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101. BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.50/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT – XII, AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Both the appeals are preferred against the dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
There is no representation for the appellant in both the appeals today as well as on the last occasion i.e., on 04-11-2019. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is present.
These appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ