National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Mr.Ashok Rajaram Bambulkar And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6905 Bom

                       Digitally signed
             SWAROOP   by SWAROOP
                       SHARAD
             SHARAD    PHADKE
             PHADKE    Date: 2022.07.19
                       16:45:08 +0530



                                                                            ia 10288 of 2022.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10288 OF 2022
                                    IN
                    REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.8781 OF 2022
                                    IN
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2019
                                   WITH
                    CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.4431 OF 2021

National Insurance Co. Ltd.                                 ...         Applicant/Petitioner
      versus
Ashok Rajaram Bambulkar and Ors.                            ...         Respondents

Mr. Amol Gatne, for Petitioner.
Mr. T.J.Mendon, for Respondents.

                                CORAM:    N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :    19th JULY, 2022
                                          ( In Chambers )

P.C.

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned APP for

the State.

2. Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

3. The review is sought on the ground that the Court could not have held

the ground of non-joinder of the driver against the Appellant. The Court could not

have awarded interest from the date of application since the cross objection was filed

belatedly. It is further contended that the notional income of the deceased has been

incorrectly assessed.

SSP                                                             1/2
                                                                      ia 10288 of 2022.doc

3. I have carefully considered the grounds in the Review Petition and the

submissions advanced by Mr. Gatne, the learned Advocate for the

Applicant/Petitioner. The issues raised by the Appellant touch the merit of the matter

and require a meticulous examination so as to find out error in the judgment, sought to

be reviewed.

4. The issues highlighted by Mr. Gatne cannot be said to be errors apparent

on the face of the record. No any sufficient cause is otherwise made out to review the

judgment.

4. Hence, the Review Petition stands dismissed.

                                                       ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




SSP                                                       2/2