Dismissed¶51

Shivamurthy v. Girisha

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026MFA/4089/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA No. 4089 of 2021 (MV-D), High Court of Karnataka, decided 18.06.2026; Bench: Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.; enhancement of motor accident compensation under S.173(1) MV Act against MACT Mysuru award dated 03.10.2019 in MVC No.1409/2017; respondents: driver Girisha, owner M.K. Chandrashekar, National Insurance Company Ltd. (policy no. 35101031166339312555, 10.01.2017–19.01.2018) covering car KA-05-AG-3861; appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after repeated non-appearance of appellants' counsel (Mohan Raj for Natesh Kumar A.B.); online adjournment request declined as case listed for dismissal; no merits findings, no quantum, no monetary amounts; insurer represented by H.S. Lingaraj.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶51

Shivamurthy Vs Girisha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30220-DB MFA No. 4089 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4089 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SHIVAMURTHY

¶13

S/O LATE APPAJINAYAKA @ APPAJI @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶14

SHANKARA S/O LATE APPAJINAYAKA @ APPAJI @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶15

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

APPELLANT NO. 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 120 SAHUKAR HUNDI VILLAGE MARATIKYATHANAHALLI POST YELWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 026.

¶17

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O MANJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOSABEEDI DODDAKATOORU GRAMA JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI MOHAN RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NATESH KUMAR A.B.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:30220-DB MFA No. 4089 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AND:

¶24

GIRISHA S/O MOODALAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT SUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE KODAVATHI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT (DRIVER OF THE MARUTHI CELERIO CAR BEARING REG. NO. KA-05-AG-3861).

¶25

M. K. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O KRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.48, 1^ST MAIN 1^ST CROSS, SHANKARNAG CIRCLE SRINIVASANAGARA BENGALURU-560 050 (OWNER OF THE MARUTHI CELERIO CAR BEARING REG.NO. KA-05-AG-3861).

¶26

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAMASWAMY CIRCLE MYSURU CITY – 570 005 AND ALSO REGIONAL OFFICE AT: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SHUBHARAM COMPLEX 2^ND FLOOR, NO.144 M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶27

(INSURER OF THE MARUTHI CELERIO CAR BEARING REG.NO.KA-05-AG-3861 VIDE POLICTY NO. 35101031166339312555 VALID FROM 10.01.2017 TO 19.01.2018)

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1409/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:30220-DB MFA No. 4089 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶37

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶40

This appeal is listed for dismissal.

¶41

When this appeal was last listed on 08.06.2026, the following order was passed:

¶42

“Despite the case has been called twice, no one appears for the appellant.

¶43

List this appeal on 18.06.2026 for dismissal.”

¶44

Today, an Advocate by name Sri. Mohan Raj, appears

¶45

online (video screen shows the name as ‘Disha D’.) and seeks for an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is not available. However, since the case is listed for dismissal, we declined to adjourn the case and asked the counsel to proceed. The counsel expressed his inability.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:30220-DB MFA No. 4089 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

4. It is noted from perusal of the order sheet that, on

¶50

repeated occasions the counsel for the appellant has not appeared and whenever appeared, he sought an adjournment.

¶51

5. Under the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed

¶52