Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Parasaram And Ors on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
REVIEW PETITION NO.200021 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANURADHA M. DESAI, ADV.)
AND
1. PARASARAM
S/O REVAPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O HORTI, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586101
2. SUSALABAI
W/O SIDDARAM TALAKERI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
3. RENUKA
W/O SHRISHAIL TALAKERI
AGE: 30, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
2
4. RAJSHEKHAR
S/O SHRISHAIL TALAKERI
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
RESPONDENT NO.4 IS MINOR
R/P BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER
I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 3 RENUKA
W/O SHRISHAIL TALAKERI
RESPONDENTS No.2 TO 4 ARE R/O HORTI
TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. SANGANGOWDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS RP IS FILED U/O 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2021 IN MFA
NO.202059/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to recall
the order dated 13.07.2021 passed in MFA
No.202059/2015.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing this petition are
as under:
Respondents No.2 to 4 filed a claim petition in MVC
No.1032/2013. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition,
in part, vide judgment and award dated 07.07.2015.
Respondents No.2 to 4 being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed an appeal
in MFA No.202059/2015. This Court, vide judgment
dated 13.07.2021, allowed the appeal in part and
modified the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioner, aggrieved by
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal,
preferred an appeal in MFA No.201518/2015 challenging
the liability. Hence, on these grounds, the petitioner
prays to allow the review petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has also challenged the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1032/2013 in
MFA No.201518/2015. The said fact was not brought to
the notice of the Court while disposing of the appeal in
MFA No.202059/2015. Hence, on this ground, she prays
to review the order passed in MFA No.202059/2015.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4
submits no objection to allow the petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that respondents No.2 to 4
filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC
No.1032/2013. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition
in part and awarded compensation and saddled the
liability on the petitioner. Respondents No.2 to 4 being
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, preferred an appeal in MFA No.202059/2015.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal, insofar as liability is
concerned, preferred an appeal in MFA No.201518/2015.
The said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court
while disposing of the appeal in MFA No.202059/2015.
This Court considering that the petitioner has not
challenged the liability, has disposed of the said appeal.
In view of pendency of MFA No.201518/2015, the
matter ought to have heard along with MFA
No.201518/2015, as the petitioner has challenged the
liability.
8. In view of the above and also in view of the
submission made by learned counsel for the
respondents, the petition is allowed. The judgment
dated 13.07.2021 passed in MFA No.202059/2015 is
recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number,
to be listed along with MFA No.201518/2015.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
