Karnataka High Court
RP/100135/2025 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., Vs SMT. CHAITRA R.G. on 28 November 2025
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16758-DB RP No. 100135 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 100135 OF 2025 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100135 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
CBI MAIN ROAD, GANGAGAR
R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 562 117
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.ASAMA MAKANDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. CHAITRA R G
W/O LATE SWAROOP MAHDEVAYYA
D/O RACHAYYA GUTTARGIMATH
AGE. 32 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O. SHASTRI NAGAR, 1 CROSS
WARD NO. 35, TGB COLONY
BALLARI, 580 024
2.
SHUBERA SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH
AGED. 53 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER
R/O. KATRALA, CHITRADURGA- 577501
3.
BYRAHANUMAIAH
S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA
MAJOR, OWNER OF TATA SUMO
BEARING NO. KA-01/B-7748
R/O. THOPPAGANAHALLI
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
RYASANDRA HOBLI
KANAKAPUR, RAMANAGARA - 562 117
4.
MAHADEVAYYA MATPATI
S/O SIDDAYYA, MAJOR
R/O. D.NO. 168
B KALPARUKSHA
VANI SRINGERI NAGAR
1ST CROSS, BEHIND EVERFINE
SUPER MARKET, BEGURU POST
BENGALURU 560 068
5.
SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O MAHADEVAYYA MATPATI
MAJOR, R/O. D. NO. 168 B
KALPARUKSHA
VANI SRINGERI NAGAR
1 CROSS, BEHIND EVERFINE
SUPER MARKET, BEGUR POST
BENGALURU 560 068
…RESPONDENTS
- - -
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC AND U/S 173(1) OF THE MV
ACT 1988, PRAYING TO REVIEW JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2025
PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN MFA NO.100833/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND MODIFY THE COMPENSATION ASSESSED BY THEM BY
REDUCING THE COMPENSATION TO JUST LEVEL IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in MFA No.100833/2020.
2. Smt.Preeti Shashank, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the deceased was neither a permanent employee nor a Government employee. Hence, the award of compensation under the head of 'future prospects' should be 40% and not 50%. It is submitted that there is an error in calculating the total income of the deceased in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Hence, she seeks review.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the order under review.
HC-KAR
4. Paragraph 10 of the judgment clearly indicates that the deceased was working in Bristlecone India Limited and drawing monthly salary as per Ex.P9. This Court has also noticed that the claimants have produced the income tax returns. After considering the documentary evidence on record, 50% was added under the head of 'loss of future prospects' by considering the deceased as a permanent employee. The contention of the review petitioner that no evidence is produced, is required to be rejected. The further contention that there is an error in calculation with regard to the total salary of the deceased, is also required to be rejected as this Court, considering the details of income which is referred in paragraph 10, has assessed the total income at Rs.10,46,940/- and has awarded compensation. The contentions urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record to review the judgment. No grounds are made out.
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Consequently, the pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE
RV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2