Dismissed¶¶56

The Manager v. Smt Varalakshmi

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025RP/265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Pradeep Singh Yerur J, 19-09-2025), RP No. 265 of 2024, NC: 2025:KHC:37810 — review by United India Insurance of judgment dated 20.02.2024 in MFA 2599/2021 c/w MFAs 2077/2021 and 4968/2021; scope of review under S.114 r/w Order XLVII Rule (1) CPC; 'error apparent on the face of the record'; new contention not urged in appeal cannot be raised in review; liability/compensation under MV Act 1988 versus WC Act 1923 for deceased Coolie; motor accident compensation; review dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the appeal order dated 20.02.2024, no grounds had been raised nor arguments addressed for considering the compensation under the WC Act. ¶¶50

The Manager Vs Smt Varalakshmi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37810 RP No. 265 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REVIEW PETITION NO. 265 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. VARALAKSHMI, W/O LATE ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KUMARI GAYATHRI @ LAKSHMIDEVAMMA A., D/O LATE ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

¶15

MASTER RAJESH A., S/O LATE ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, RESPONDENT 2 & 3 BEING MINORS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER NATURAL MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶16

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:37810 RP No. 265 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶21

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT PATHAKOTE VILLAGE, YAGAVAKOTE POST, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 146.

¶22

SMT. RAJAMMA, W/OLATE B. K. ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶23

SRI BHASKARA REDDY, W/OLATE B. K. ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶24

SRI B. A. RAVIKUMAR, W/O LATE B. K. ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. DEVIKA, D/O LATE B. K. ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶26

RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT BATLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHINTHAMANI TLAUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563123.

¶27

SRI P. S. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O SRI SETHAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT PATHAKOTE VILLAGE, YAGAVAKOTE POST, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 146.

¶28

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5^TH FLOOR, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:37810 RP No. 265 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS CSC HEAD.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI G M SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI K.M.SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9; SRI HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R10; SRI MURALIDHAR NEGAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11)

¶35

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED IN MFA.NO.2599/2021 C/W MFA NOS.2077/2021 AND 4968/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN SO FAR AS LIABILITY ASPECT AND HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS URGED IN THIS REVIEW PETITION.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner-Insurance Company

¶40

and learned counsel for respondents are present.

¶41

The present review petition is filed by the

¶42

petitioner-Insurance Company to review the judgment dated 20.02.2024 passed in MFA.No2599/2021 c/w MFA.Nos.2077/2021 and 4968/2021 insofar as the liability

¶43

aspect and to hear and dispose of the appeals afresh on

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:37810 RP No. 265 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the ground that as the deceased was held to be a Coolie, the compensation ought to have been adjudicated under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'WC Act') and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act'). Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner-Insurance Company contends that it is a mistake in the judgment and an error apparent on the face of the case. Hence, to review the same and determine the contract as per the WC Act, rather than the MV Act.

¶48

Learned counsel for respondents contends that this aspect of the matter, which is now raised in the prayer, was not urged or argued or pleaded before this Court in the appeal proceedings. These contentions are taken up for the first time in the review petition.

¶49

I have perused the orders passed by this Court in

¶50

the appeal dated 20.02.2024; apparently no such grounds are raised to consider the compensation under the WC Act, so also no arguments were addressed to that extent.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:37810 RP No. 265 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Under the circumstances, what is not urged and

¶55

addressed before the Appellate Court cannot be taken up for the first time and argued in the review petition to contend that there is an error committed by this Court while passing the orders in the appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner-Insurance Company, as no ground is made out to show that there is any error apparent on the face of the record.

¶56

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed .

¶57

Pending I.As. do not survive for consideration and

¶58

the same pale into insignificance.

¶59

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶60

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

The Manager v. Smt Varalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Smt Varalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Shaheen Vs the Managing Director

D E Esha Saheb S/O Abubakarsab Vs S M Abdul Rashid S/O Ismail Sab

Smt. Vandana Rangarao Pol Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. Sai. Giridhar Nalamaru Vs Smt. Nameirakpam Nirmala Devi

Sarojamma W/O Late D Narayanappa Vs Smt Kalpana W/O Suresh

Banmali Vs the Central Silk Board