Dismissed¶39

Sri T v. Annaiah v Sri G N Rajashekar @ Rajasekharaiah

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026RP/580/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Review Petition No. 580 of 2023; NC: 2026:KHC:1448-DB; decided 09.01.2026; Coram: Justice D K Singh (author) and Justice S Rachaiah; review under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC of judgment dated 06.10.2023 in MFA No.977/2016 c/w MFA No.6823/2015 (MV-I); motor vehicle accident compensation enhancement; accident dated 11.12.2012; injured claimant G N Rajashekar; petitioner T V Annaiah owner of Jeep KA-18/M-54765; Oriental Insurance Co Ltd respondent; disability 39% whole body; multiplier 9; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121; loss of future income Rs.5,05,440; error apparent on face of record; review dismissed; pending IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

None; pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. ¶39

Sri T v Annaiah Vs Sri G N Rajashekar @ Rajasekharaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1448-DB RP No. 580 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REVIEW PETITION NO. 580 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. T V ANNAIAH S/O T H VASUDEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OWNER OF JEEP NO KA-18/M-54765, B COLONY, KARAKUCHI POST, TARIKERE TALUK,

¶11

CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 228.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. G N RAJASHEKAR @ RAJASEKHARAIAH S/O NEELAKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND ARECANUT BUSINESS, R/O C/O MOOKSHANATHA BVKS LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1448-DB RP No. 580 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. PANDU @ T M PANDURANGAPPA S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OWNER OF MARUTHI OMNI NO KA-18/M-3/8308 R/O M. THIMMAIAH ROAD, TARIKERE TOWN, CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶20

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;

¶23

BY SRI. H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN MFA NO. 6823/2015 (MV-I) C/W MFA NO. 977/2016(MV-I) DATED 6TH OCTOBER 2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE MISC.FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY DISMISSING THE MISC.FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:1448-DB RP No. 580 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.977/2016 connected with MFA No.6823/2015.

¶33

The respondent /injured preferred the appeal in MFA No. 977/2016 seeking enhancement of the compensation which he suffered in a road accident on 11.12.2012. On the basis of the medical evidence, this Court assessed the future loss of income considering the disability at 39% to the whole body.

¶34

Mr. Siddappa B.M, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record to consider 100% disability. However, it is not the case. This Court, in the order in question, has considered only 39% of the disability, in paragraph No.28 of the judgment, which reads as under:

¶35

“28. The whole body disability is assessed to the extent of 39%. Thus, 39% of

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1448-DB RP No. 580 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Rs.12,000/- comes to Rs.4,680/-. It is to be calculated annually which comes to Rs.56,160/- (4,680x12). As per the medical records, at the time of accident claimant was aged 60 years. As per Sarla Verma and Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr¹ case, the proper multiplier applicable is ` 9' . Thus the loss of future income due to disability comes to Rs.5,05,440/-(Rs.56,160 x 9).”

¶39