Karnataka High Court
MFA/5414/2021 of MAHADEVAPPA Vs NAGARAJU on 17 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010399712021 NC: 2026:KHC:50757 MFA No. 5414 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5414 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAHADEVAPPA, S/O LATE MARIGOWDA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5414 OF 2021
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVAPPA,
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YERS,
R/O GODDANPAURA (MARALURU)
VILLGE, CHATRA HOLBI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MSYURU DISTRICT – 571 201.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N. D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
NAGARAJU,
S/O KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT HALLIDIIDDI VILALGE,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MSYURU DISTRICT – 571 201.
2.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3RD CROSS, R P ROAD,
NANJANAGUD TOWN
REP. BY MANGER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS D/W, V/O DATED 11.07.2025)
----
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2021, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.409/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T. AT NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appeal is of the year 2021. Today, the matter is listed for final hearing.
2. None appears for the appellant. However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is present.
3. Considering the non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
4. Ordered, accordingly.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44