IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100947 OF 2016 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. KHUTEJABI S/O. RAJBEG INAMDAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SMT. DULHANBI (MUNERA)

W/O. SHAMASUDDIN SAYYED, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. KUMARI SHABANA D/O. SHAMASUDDIN SAYYED, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, GIRIJA A.

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BYAHATTI D G Lo I ig R c i a I t J t a A i l o l y n A : . s H i B g Y I n G A e H H d A b T y T I 4. KUMARA RAJIA COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH D/O. SHAMASUDDIN SAYYED, DHARWAD AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O: MASARGUPPI, NOW C/O. WADRALI, JALI QUARTERS, HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHRI RAYAGOUDA L. PATIL, R/O. SACASUDDI, TALUK: RAIBAG, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF MAHINDRA PICK UP NO.KA-23/D-9129)

2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAHADEV PLAZA, KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI.

(INSURER OF MAHINDRA PICK UP NO.KA-23/D-9129)

(POLICY NO.1410782334001961)

VALID FROM 08.09.2008 TO 07.09.2009)

…RESPONDENTS (R1-DECEASED; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.1575/2012 BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PASSED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

Sri Akash representing Sri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants submits that, the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal. Seeks to pass necessary orders.

2. As there was no representation on appellants’ side on 09.10.2025 and as the appellants did not choose to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1, the matter was ordered to be listed under the caption for dismissal and accordingly the matter is listed on this day under the caption for dismissal. 3. On this day, the aforementioned submission is made by learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appeal deserves dismissal for non-prosecution.

Hence the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16