IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRAPPA SON OF LATE. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF MALLESHETTIHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA PATTANA SHETTY , ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) AND:
1. SRI. K. MURUGESH SON OF KALIYAPPA GOUNDAR RESIDENT OF DODDAGHATTA POST HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT (DRIVER OF CAR BEARING REG NO. KA 16/MA100).
2. K. B. SUBRAMANYA SON OF SRI. KONDESWAMY GOUNDAR RESIDENT OF LAKKAVVANAHALLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT (OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG NO.KA 16/MA100).
3. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.94 M H ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. POLICY COVER NOTE NO.289720 VALID FROM 3-11-2004 TO 2-11-2005.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT-3 SRI. MADHUKAR NADIGE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT-1 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT-2 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.502 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT None appears for the appellant and in fact, there was no representation even on 22.2.2019 when this appeal was listed for hearing.
2. Sri H.R.Renuka, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 - Corporation submits that the present appeal is filed by the claimants in MVC No.502/2009 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT-II, Davanagere impugning the judgment dated 7.12.2010. However, the respondent No.3 – Corporation impugned this judgment dated 7.12.2010 inter alia on the ground of quantum in MFA No.4314/2011. This Court disposed of the appeal in MFA No.4314/2011 on 10.7.2015 partly allowing the Corporation’s appeal reducing the compensation awarded from Rs.2,80,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the decision by this Court on quantum, the appeal would not survive for consideration. This indeed would be so because the only question canvassed in the present appeal is about quantum. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE nv