Mumtaz vs The National Insurance Co Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 5943 Kant

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                          AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


                  RP.NO.39 OF 2021
                         IN
              MFA NO.1915 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:

1. MUMTAZ
W/O LATE SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2. FAROOK
D/O LATE SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

3. FARZANA
D/O LATE SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

4. FARVEES
S/O LATE SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

5. FAYAZ
S/O LATE SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                               2


6. FAIZAL
S/O LATE SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT FARZANA MANZIL
ULIYARGOLI, KAUP
UDUPI TALUK - 574 106

                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
30, BHARATH BUILDING
P M ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX
MG ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER
SMT. REKHA S MENON

2. SUMITHA K
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O SUDESH MAROLI
R/AT AKSHAYA, VIDHYARANAYA NAGAR
ULLAL, DK DISTRICT - 574 193

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 23/11/2020 PASSED IN MFA NO. 1915/2017 AND ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                                3


     THIS REVIEW PETITON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, S SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

This review petition is filed by the claimants seeking

review of the order dated 23.11.2020 passed in

MFA.No.1915/2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that the deduction of 1/3rd of income towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased Suleman and also split

multiplier adopted are not in conformity with the settled

principles of law.

3. We have perused the order dated 23.11.2020. We

are of the considered opinion that no error apparent on the

face of the record is found except a typographical error that

has occurred in page 9 at line No.8 of the said judgment,

wherein it is typed as claimant Nos.2 to 6 were 'married

daughters' instead of 'major children'. The same is corrected

accordingly. In all other respects, the order dated 23.11.2020

remains intact.

4. After incorporating the necessary corrections, the

Registry shall furnish the corrected copy to the parties.

The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA