The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The petitioner sought to review an award denying her accident claim, alleging rash driving. The court found no grounds for review as the evidence established injuries were due to convulsion, not an accident.
Petition for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
REVIEW PETITION NO.644 OF 2022 IN
M.F.A.NO.6516 OF 2016 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.6074 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
RANI S D/O SIDDAVEERASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O HUNASUR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT, NOW R/AT NEAR KOTE ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAM M.Y, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OWNER CUM CUSTODIAN OF INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND, KSRTC, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA 6516/2016 C/W MFA 6074/2016 DATED 19.07.2022 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE APPEAL BY
2
ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.10.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner who is appellant before this Court and claimant before the trial Court has filed this petition under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to review the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 and permit the petitioner to contest the appeal.
grounds:
(i) Though respondent has challenged the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is that the compensation granted under the head loss of future earnings is exorbitant and the disability taken at 25% is on the higher side, instead of reducing the compensation awarded, this Court has dismissed the entire petition by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and it is bad in law.
(ii) As respondent challenged the award on the ground that compensation is on the higher side,
3
petitioner has withdrawn 50% of the award amount deposited before this Court.
(iii) Petitioner is a lady. The accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle in question. Police authorities have also filed charge sheet against him. This Hon'ble Court has held that the driver would face criminal prosecution, however, respondent has not taken the said contention.
(iv) This Hon'ble Court has observed that no eye witnesses are examined. When the respondent has not taken such contention, dismissal of the petition on that ground is erroneous.
Court are:
4
following:
REASONS
5
6
7
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 C.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RR/MDS
1 issue framed by the court
2. Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to review the order in question?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RANI S D/O SIDDAVEERASHETTY
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OWNER CUM CUSTODIAN OF INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND, KSRTC
J.M.KHAZI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
