Karnataka High Court
Sri. Philip vs Sri. Mohammed Saffi on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6304
RP No. 5 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PHILIP,
S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ VINCENT,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
NO.24, B.S.A ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 084.
2. SMT. ROSEY,
W/O MUTHUSWAMY T,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO.312, 1ST CROSS,
NEW BAGLUR LAYOUT,
ST.THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560 084.
3. JOSEPHINE,
Digitally signed by W/O PHILIP,
AASEEFA PARVEEN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO.312, 1ST CROSS,
KARNATAKA NEW BAGLUR LAYOUT,
ST.THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560 084.
4. DANIEL,
S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ VINCENT
SEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
VALAJPET VELLORE,
TAMILNADU-632 513.
5. GEORGE S.,
S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ VINCENT SEVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6304
RP No. 5 of 2025
R/AT NO.17, 12TH CROSS,
SAGYA PERRAN,
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560 084.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR R. L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAMMED SAFFI,
S/O. S. MOHINDDIN BASHA,
NO.1130, 17TH CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, HRB LAYOUT,
OPP. TO NARENDRA THEATERE,
BENGALURU-560 043.
2. BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON,
SURY NO.28,
DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE,
K. R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 037.
3. SMT. ALICE MARY,
W/O. LATE CARITON THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.312, 1ST CROSS,
NEW BAGALUR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 084.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW
PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2024,
PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN MFA NO. 3933/24.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6304
RP No. 5 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Udaya Kumar R.L., learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. This review petition is filed seeking the Court to
re-visit its order, which was rendered on 03.09.2024 in MFA
No.3933/2021.
3. The review petition is filed on the following
grounds:
(i) That the decisions that were rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others and Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
and others were not followed and no amount was awarded for
transportation of the dead body.
(ii) That the Notional Income of the deceased ought to
have been taken as Rs.14,500/- and not Rs.10,000/- per
month.
(iii) That just compensation was not awarded.
NC: 2025:KHC:6304
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,500/- as compensation
and indeed the petitioners are entitled to a higher sum and
therefore, the present review petition is filed.
5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
only as compensation. However, considering the pleas that
were taken by these petitioners in the appeal and discussing at
length the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case and placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case between Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai which is reported in
AIR 1987 SC 1960, the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case between B.V.Gopala and another vs.
Mehaboob Pasha and others in MFA No.7318/2016 dated
23.10.2020 and also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in MFA No.5319/2022 dated 16.07.2024, this Court
enhanced the sum which is liable to be awarded as
compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.4,36,500/-.
6. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the sum
that is awarded as compensation, they are entitled to agitate
NC: 2025:KHC:6304
before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate
proceedings. This Court has got no power to decide the matter
again on merits, that too basing on the review petition filed by
the petitioners. The scope of review is limited and well settled.
None of the grounds urged comes under the purview of the
powers of the Courts to review its decision. Therefore, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the review petition lacks
merits and deserves dismissal.
Therefore, the review petition is dismissed along with
I.A.No.1/2025.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
CT:TSM
