Sri Yogananda vs Smt Jayalakshmi M
2022 Latest Caselaw 11082 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                              AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                     R.P. No.114/2021
                             IN
                    M.F.A. NO.143/2018

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI YOGANANDA,
       S/O MANCHALA,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

2.     SMT. UMA,
       W/O YOGANANDA,
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

BOTH RESIDING AT
VANDARAGUPPE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
                                           ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI RAJU S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. JAYALAKSHMI M
       W/O MAHENDRAN M
       HOUSE NO.105/3,
       KANTHAN COLONY
       TUTICORN-8, CHIDAMBARA NAGARA,
       TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN - 628 008
                               2




2.    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      NO.2241/14,
      GIRIYAMMA SHAMBHUGOWDA COMPLEX
      CHURCH ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
      CHANNAPATNA-572159.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN MFA NO.143/2018
TO RE-HEAR THE APPEAL, MODIFY THE FINDINGS AND PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND GRANT
JUST COMPENSATION WITH COSTS AND INTEREST.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR "HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION" THIS DAY, H.P.SANDESH J,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners.

The counsel prayed this Court to review the findings in the

impugned judgment in M.F.A. No.143/2018 and to rehear the

appeal, modify the findings and to pass such other orders.

2. The review petitioner has also filed an I.A.2/2021

for condonation of delay of 356 days in filing the review

petition.

3. Having heard the counsel and also on perusal of

the order passed by this Court dated 20.02.2020 wherein this

Court in paragraph No.5 taken note of both the victims are

minors, aged about 15 years and 17 years and not having any

driving license and apart from that in paragraph No.6 taken

note of the judgment rendered by this Court in New India

Assurance Company Limited vs. Hemanth and others reported

in 2017 ACJ 418. Having considered the material and also the

principles laid down in the judgment, passed the order and

reduced the compensation in a case of minor to the tune of

`.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only), modifying the order

passed by the Tribunal by holding that the appellants in

M.F.A.No.143/2018 shall be entitled to receive `.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakh only). There is no error apparent on the

record to consider the same and unless there is any error

apparent on record, question of entertaining the review

petition does not arise and the same is considered on material

available on record and also the principles laid down in the

judgment which has been referred in the order and hence we

do not find any grounds to entertain the review petition.

4. The review petition has also accompanied with an

application to condone the delay of 356 days and the reason

assigned in the affidavit filed along with the application is that

due to pandemic from last one year, could not contact the

counsel and matter was disposed of in the month of February,

2020. No acceptable reasons are assigned in the application to

condone the delay. On considering the grounds urged in the

application, no grounds made out to condone the delay also.

Accordingly, the review petition along with I.A.2/2021 stands

dismissed.

5. In view of dismissal of review petition, I.A.1/2021

for dispensation of production of the certified copy of the order

in M.F.A. No.143/2018 does not survive for consideration and

the same is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE ykl CT-HR