The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Kamal W/O Tajoddin Makandar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Kamal W/O Tajoddin Makandar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12913-DB RP No. 100037 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

REVIEW PETITION NO. 100037 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NIPPANI OFFICE 24, 1^ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, NIPPANI, REP. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, THROUGH ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

SMT. KAMAL W/O TAJODDIN MAKANDAR AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O HABIBSHA TAKKE, HUKKERI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309.

KUM. MOHAMMAD SHAHID S/O TAJODDIN MAKANDAR AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O HABIBSHA TAKKE, HUKKERI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309.

KUM. MOHAMMAD ZAHID S/O TAJODDIN AGE. 15 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O HABIBSHA TAKKE, HUKKERI,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12913-DB RP No. 100037 of 2025

HC-KAR

TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309. SINCE RESPONDENTS NOS.2 AND 3 MINOR R/BY NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.

SRI. ILAHIBAKSHA @ ILAHI S/O GOUSSA MAKANDAR AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O HABIBSHA TAKKE, HUKKERI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309.

SMT. FATIMA W/O ILHABAKSHA @ ILAHI MAKANDAR AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O HABIBSHA TAKKE, HUKKERI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309.

SRI. AMAR S/O MALLIKARJUN MADALAGI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O DADDI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE (1) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE COMMON JUDGMENTS DATED 25.10.2023 IN MFA NO.102914/2016 C/W 102043/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

THIS RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12913-DB RP No. 100037 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This review petition is filed seeking review of the

judgment dated 25.10.2025 passed in MFA No.102914/2016 c/w. MFA No.102043/2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.N.R.Kuppelur submits that the salary certificate produced by the claimant at Ex.P.9 is fake and the said fact could not be brought on record. Hence, the judgment is required to be reviewed. In support of his contention, he has filed a memo dated 23.09.2025 along with certain documents. Hence, he seeks to consider the review petition on merits.

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

It is to be noticed that in MFA No.102914/2016 is filed by the petitioner and MFA No.102043/2016 is filed by the claimant, considering the appeals this Court modified the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of 70% and disposed off the appeal. Now, the contention of the appellant

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12913-DB RP No. 100037 of 2025

HC-KAR

is that the claimant has produced Ex.P.9 which is a fake salary certificate. In support of the said contention, memo is filed. The relevant portion of the memo is extracted hereunder;

“………..After suspecting genuineness of the salary Slip as per Exh.P-9, the petitioner/company has appointed an Investigator to secure the records pertaining to the employment of the details and Salary details and details of the school. The concerned school has denied to furnish the information and therefore the petitioner/company has filed RTI Appeal and is about to secure the records…….”

The apprehension of the Insurance Company that the Ex.P.9 salary certificate is fake, is without any material on record and that cannot be a ground to review the judgment. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits. There is no error apparent on the face of record to review the judgment. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

Sd/(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

PJ, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10