Smt. Rathnamma @ Rathna vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 6378 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

      R.P.No.121/2021 IN M.F.A.No.5147/2016 (MV-D)

BETWEEN :

1.      SMT. RATHNAMMA @ RATHNA
        AGED 54 YEARS
        W/O LATE H. GANGANNA,

2.      MASTER YESHWANTH.G
        AGED 13 YEARS
        S/O LATE H. GANGANNA,
        SINCE PETITIONER No.2 IS MINOR
        REPRESENTED BY HIS
        MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
        SMT RATHNAMMA @ RATHNA
        (PETITONER NO.1)

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF No.15/9,
9TH CROSS, SHIVANAGAR,
8TH MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-10                   ...PETITIONERS

         (BY SRI VISWANATH SABARAD, ADV. [ABSENT])

AND :

1.      M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
        No.266, 1ST FLOOR,
        GANGADHARAPPA COMPLEX,
        SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
        VISHWANEEDAM, BANGALORE -91.
                       -2-



     NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
     6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
     NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU -01
     BY ITS MANAGER.

2.   MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
     No. 40, 2ND LANE, CKC GARDEN,
     4TH FLOOR, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-27
     (INSURER OF LORRY NO. KA-17/B-2779)

3.   SIDDARAJU K
     S/O KEMPA HANUMIAH.P,
     MAJOR, No.24/2, PARAMANNA LAYOUT,
     NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DIST- 562123
     (R.C. OWNER OF LORRY NO KA-17/B-2779)

4.   SRI MANOHAR K
     S/O LATE KARIGOWDA,
     MAJOR, No.8/9, LAKSHMI NILAYA,
     4TH MAIN, PIPE LIANE,
     SOLLAPURADAMMA EXTENSION,
     SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-91
     RC OWNER OF TEMPO
     TRAVELLER NO.KA-04-B-9273)         ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 [a] READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED        11.12.2020   PASSED   IN
M.F.A.No.5147/2016; TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTERST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                          -3-


                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

2. The main ground for seeking review of the

order dated 14.10.2020 passed in MFA No.5147/2016

by this Court that while applying the split multiplier, for

4 years entire income has been taken and for the

remaining part, 50% of the income is taken as pension.

3. While applying the split multiplier for the

period of service of four years, the entire income having

been taken, for the remaining period, 50% of the income

is taken which would be the pension amount that could

have been drawn by the deceased who was aged about

56 years at the time of the accident. This cannot be

interpreted that the Court has deducted 50% of the

pension income of the deceased as canvassed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

We find no error apparent on the face of the

record. As a result, review petition stands dismissed.

As the review petition is considered on merits, no

prejudice would be caused to the other side in

condoning the delay of 43 days in filing the review

petition. Hence, delay of 43 days for filing the review

petition is condoned.

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 is allowed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

NC.