The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Smt.Roopa H M
2022 Latest Caselaw 5379 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

            REVIEW PETITION NO.189 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALURU
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC, BENGALURU.

                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NAGARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     SMT.ROOPA H M
       D/O SRI MALLESHAPPA
       SINCE DECEASED BY LR
       KUM.SHIROODASHINI
       D/O SHIVAMURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
       MINOR REP. BY
       NATURAL GUARDIAN-FATHER
       SRI.SHIVAMURTHY
       S/O DATTATHREYA
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
       LECTURER
       R/O BEHIND GOVT SCHOOL
       DANTARAMAKKI
       JYOTHINAGARA POST
       CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY.
                             2



2.   SRI PRADEEPA H M
     S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
     OCC:COOLIE
     R/AT HULIKERE VILLAGE & POST
     KADUR TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

3.   SRI M L SATHISHA
     S/O LINGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     R/AT GUNJIGANURU
     S.DURGA HOBLI
     HOLALAKERE TALUK
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                        .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE
FOR R.2 AND R.2)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENT IN MFA NO.519/2018 (MVC) C/W MFA
NO.38/2018(MVC) DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY
AND LAW, AND ETC.,

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON                 FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                     THE
FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The present Review Petition is filed seeking review of

the judgment dated 06.03.2020 passed by this Court in

MFA No.519/2018 c/w MFA No.38/2018.

2. The grounds urged in the review petition is that

the claimants being the major son and married daughter of

the deceased, are not entitled for compensation under the

head "Loss of Dependency".

3. At para No.13 of the judgment this Court having

taken note of the said fact has, after deducting 50%

towards personal expenses of the deceased, proceeded to

determine the compensation under the head "Loss of

Dependency".

4. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged in

the revision petition do not indicate any error apparent on

the face of the judgment.

5. Therefore, this review petition is devoid of merits

and accordingly, stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM