Dismissed

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v. Syed Zabiulla

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2013RP/94/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition seeking enhancement of compensation lost income awarded in an accident case. The petitioner, insurer, argued there was evidence supporting the original award based on respondent's disability percentage.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as there were no justifiable grounds to review the judgment.

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Vs Syed Zabiulla — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RP 94/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

REVIEW PETITION No.94/2012

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GROUND FLOOR, NO.31 TBR TOWER I CROSS, MISSION ROAD ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE AND BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE-560027 BY ITS MANAGER, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT(CLAIMS).

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(By Smt : H R RENUKA, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

SYED ZABIULLA S/O SYED SATTAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.622, 30TH B CROSS 8TH MAIN, TILAKNAGAR BANGALORE.

¶14

SURYANARAYANA RAO @ NARAYANA RAO SURYA ADULT, S/O K RAMACHANDRAIAH NO.731, HRUSHIKESHA 8TH MAIN, 3RD PHASE J P NAGARA BANGALORE-560041. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Sri.D MANMOHAN, ADV. FOR R1, R2 NOTICE DISPENSED)

¶16

-2-

¶17

RP 94/2012

¶18

Review Petition filed Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying for review the Order dated 08-02-2012 passed in MFA.7533/2010 (MV), on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

¶19

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This review petition is filed to review the judgment and order dated 8.2.2012 in which the compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced and loss of income of Rs.81,600/- was granted.

¶22

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶23

for the respondent that there is no evidence with regard to reduction in the income and the Tribunal has taken into consideration the said aspect and also the evidence of RW2 an Inspector and she submits that in the absence of any evidence with regard to reduction in the income, the award of compensation towards loss of income is not warranted.

¶24

RP 94/2012

¶25

-3-

¶26

It is relevant to note that the appellant

¶27

was a businessman doing tyre business and he is stated in his evidence that he is not able to do the business as he was doing earlier. So far as the business is concerned, his capacity to do the work every day will be reduced due to the disability which he suffers. In such circumstances on the basis of percentage of disability to the extent of

¶28

loss of income has been awarded taking into consideration the disability suffered. In these circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to review the judgment and award passed by this Court wherein the compensation towards the loss of income at Rs.81,600/was granted considering the disability at 10%.

¶29

Therefore, there is no merit in the review petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

*AP/-

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v. Syed Zabiulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v. Syed Zabiulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muniyappa S/O Gudapalli Muniswamy Vs P Rajanna S/O Kasaba Papannaiah

B v Sreenivas Vs Padmanabhan

Sri T Narayanaswamy Vs Smt Ammannamma

Mariyamma Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

G Krishnamurthy Vs Srinivas M

M a Aswath Vs P Babulal