Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S. Sumangala @ Suma Vs Prabhu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
S. Sumangala @ Suma Vs PrabhuS. Sumangala @ Suma v. Prabhu

Dismissed¶43

S. Sumangala @ Suma v. Prabhu

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026MFA/9503/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court MFA No. 9503 of 2015 (MV-D); CNR KAHC010490322015; NC 2026:KHC:39007-DB. Appellants: S. Sumangala @ Suma (widow) and minor S. Aishwarya (daughter) of late S. Mahesh Kumar; counsel Shashidhara R. Respondents: Prabhu (driver, R1 dispensed with), Mohammed Usman Kamanagar (owner, R2 served but unrepresented), Senior Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (counsel A.N. Krishnaswamy) and Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.; lorry KA-25/A-2882. Appeal under S. 173(1) MV Act against judgment and award dated 28.02.2015 in MVC No.488/2006 before Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, seeking enhancement of compensation. Conditional order dated 05.06.2026 requiring attested translations plus affidavit under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment); non-compliance; appeal dismissed on 05.06.2026 without adjudication of merits. Bench: Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.

What did the court decide?

Appellants were permitted three weeks, and no more, to file the duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record together with an affidavit as required under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further reference to the Court. ¶41

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur in MVC No.488/2006. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Appellants were permitted three weeks, and no more, to file the duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record together with an affidavit as required under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further reference to the Court.

Key takeaways

As the appellants did not comply with the Court order dated 05.06.2026, the appeal stands dismissed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju), High Court of Karnataka, MFA No. 9503 of 2015 (MV-D): dependents of the late S. Mahesh Kumar appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2015 of the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur in MVC No.488/2006 (claim concerning lorry KA-25/A-2882; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. among respondents), seeking enhancement of the partly allowed compensation. By order dated 05.06.2026 the appellants were allowed three weeks, and no more, to file duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record with an affidavit under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The order was not complied with; accordingly the appeal stands dismissed, the merits of the enhancement claim remaining unadjudicated.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:39007-DB MFA No. 9503 of 2015

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010490322015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9503 OF 2015 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

S. SUMANGALA @ SUMA W/O LATE S.MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK,

S.AISHWARYA

D/O LATE S.MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

MINOR

REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AS NEXT FRIEND

Digitally signed by MAMATHA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE FIRST APPELLANT,

BOTH ARE R/O NO. 275/A, 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

PRABHU S/O GURUPUTHRAPPA, AGED MAJOR,

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:39007-DB MFA No. 9503 of 2015

CNR: KAHC010490322015

DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA-25/A-2882, C/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN SAB, KAMANAGAR, VEERAPUR ONI, HUBLI.

MOHAMMED USMAN KAMANAGAR S/O HAZRATH SAB, AGE MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA-25/A-2882, R/O VEERAPUR ONI, HUBLI

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO. 249/1 AND 2, SHAMANUR BUILDING, CHAMARAJ PET, DAVANAGERE.

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHIGATERI MERCANTILE BUILDING, H.M.ROAD, DAVANAGERE.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.488/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:39007-DB MFA No. 9503 of 2015

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010490322015

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORAL ORDER

Learned Counsel for the appellants prays for and is permitted three weeks and no more time to get the duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record along an affidavit as required under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which, the appeal shall dismissed without further reference to the Court.

If the translations are duly filed, list on 30.06.2026.

NOTE: Court Order dt.05.06.2026 not complied with. Hence Appeal stands dismissed.

COPY

T By : MK R By : YL C By : NR

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur in MVC No.488/2006.medium confidence¶35
2.
Whether the appeal could proceed without the duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record and accompanying affidavit required under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment).¶41
The court held
Appellants were permitted three weeks, and no more, to file the duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record together with an affidavit as required under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further reference to the Court.ratio¶41

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Motor Vehicles Act173(1)¶35
Code of Civil ProcedureOrder XIII Rule 12 (Karnataka Amendment)¶41

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and award dated 28.02.2015 passed in MVC No.488/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation.¶35
Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur · 28.02.2015
Prior proceeding
Claim petition MVC No.488/2006 adjudicated by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, resulting in the judgment and award dated 28.02.2015 partly allowing compensation; appellants filed this MFA under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation.¶35
Prior proceeding
By order dated 05.06.2026 the Court gave the appellants three weeks, and no more, to file duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record together with an affidavit under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which the appeal was to be dismissed without further reference to the Court.¶41

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
S. SUMANGALA @ SUMA W/O LATE S.MAHESH KUMAR¶13
Shashidhara R.
appellant
S.AISHWARYA¶14
Shashidhara R.
respondent
PRABHU S/O GURUPUTHRAPPA¶24
respondent
MOHAMMED USMAN KAMANAGAR S/O HAZRATH SAB¶30
respondent
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.¶31
A.N. Krishnaswamy
respondent
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, LTD.¶32

Coram

AI extract

Jayant Banerjimember¶8
Tara Vitasta Ganjumember¶10

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 5 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 18 Dec 2015
Case no.: MFA/9503/2015
CNR: KAHC010490322015
Topic: Motor Accident Claims
Bench: Jayant Banerji Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disposal: Dismissal for Non Compliance of Office Objections
Case type: Miscellaneous First Appeal (MV-D)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Jayant Banerji Tara Vitasta Ganju

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs K.S. Pavithra
4 Jun 2026
Smt. K S Pavithra Vs the Divisional Controller
4 Jun 2026
Dr. Lavanya Shenoy Vs Smt. M Sai Leela
4 Jun 2026
Roshan D Souza Vs v H Basheer
5 Jun 2026
Mr Mruthunjaya Hiremath Vs Sri Shankar a L
5 Jun 2026
Sri. Santhosh. S. Kuppast Vs Smt. Nandini Manjunath
5 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

S. Sumangala @ Suma v. Prabhu, MFA/9503/2015 (KA), decided on 5 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Motor Vehicles Act173(1)
Code of Civil ProcedureOrder XIII Rule 12 (Karnataka Amendment)

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment and award dated 28.02.2015 passed in MVC No.488/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation.Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur · 28.02.2015
Claim petition MVC No.488/2006 adjudicated by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, resulting in the judgment and award dated 28.02.2015 partly allowing compensation; appellants filed this MFA under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation.
By order dated 05.06.2026 the Court gave the appellants three weeks, and no more, to file duly attested translations of the testimony/documents on record together with an affidavit under Order XIII Rule 12 CPC (Karnataka Amendment), failing which the appeal was to be dismissed without further reference to the Court.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju

Parties & counsel