Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Chayabai @ Chaya W/O Baburao ... on 18 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO. 200013/2021
IN
MFA NO.202036/2016 (MV)
Between:
The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Insurance Co. Ltd., S.S. Front Road
Vijayapura-586101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Chayabai @ Chaya
W/o Baburao Kumbar
Age: 58 years, Occ: household
R/o Mahim, Tq. Sangola
Dist. Solapur, now at Jalageri
Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586101
2. Sri Uttam Dnyadeo Thengal
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture
At/Post: Kerdu, Tq. Madha
Dist. Solapur-413001
(Owner of Tractor No.MH-45/F-1853
& Trally No.MH-45/E-1301)
2
3. Sou. Shobha Changadeo Pawar
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture
At/Post: Chincholi Bhose
Tq. Pandharpur
Dist. Solapur-413001
(owner of Trally No.MH-13/J-3618)
4. Santhosh K.Bhise
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Kurudwadi, Tq. Madha
Dist. Solapur
Maharashtra-413001
(Earlier owner of Trally
No. MH-45/E-1301)
... Respondents
(By Sri S.S. Mamdapur, Advocate for R1)
This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 R/W S.151
C.P.C., praying to review the judgment in MFA No.202036/2016 dated
07.02.2020 on the file of High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench and
call for records, by modifying the above said judgment and award subject
to the result of the appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA No.201601/2016.
This petition coming on for Orders on this day the court made the
following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available
on record.
2. This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 07.02.2020 passed in MFA No.202036/2016 whereby the
said appeal filed by the respondent No.1, claimant was partly
allowed by this court which granted additional enhanced
compensation of Rs.9,65,376/- together with interest at 6% per
annum in favour of the respondent No.1-claimant. The sole ground
urged in the present review petition is that due to inadvertence it
was not possible for the insurance company to bring to the notice of
this court that another appeal in MFA No.201601/2016 filed by the
insurance company questioning the liability as well as quantum of
compensation was pending as on 07.02.2020 when the aforesaid
appeal was allowed by this court and consequently it is necessary
that both the appeals are to be heard and dispose of together by
reviving and setting aside the impugned judgment and award
passed by this court.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-
claimant did not dispute the fact that MFA No.201601/2016 is still
pending before this court as on today. He however and submits
that there is no ground made out by the petitioner to allow the
petition.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and submissions made at the Bar that due to
oversightal inadvertence, pendency of the other appeal filed by the
insurance company in MFA No.201601/2016 was not brought to the
notice of this court at the time of disposal of appeal in MFA
No.202036/2016 filed by the claimant, I am of the considered view
that the same constitutes "any other sufficient reason" within the
meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for the purpose of reviewing
the impugned judgment and award by recalling the same and
posting the said appeal MFA No.202036/2016 for disposal afresh
along with MFA No.201601/2016.
5. In the result, I pass the following;
ORDER
i) The review petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award
dated 07.02.2020 passed by this court
in MFA No.202036/2016 is hereby
recalled and set aside.
iii) List MFA No.202036/2016 along with
MFA No.201601/2016 before the
appropriate Bench having roster.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
