Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34549
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
REVIEW PETITION NO.273/2018
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NOS.271/2018, 272/2018,
274/2018
IN R.P.NO.273/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
SRI. B. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SEETHA RAMA RAO B C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.PAPAMMA @ CHIKKA PAPAMMA,
@ CHIKKA PAPAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O LATE VENAKTESHGOWDA,
NO.170, I CROSS, AND 177,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR NAGA,
VIJINAPURA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BANGALOER-560 016.
2. SRI SANJAN SHIVAJI KOLEKAR, MAJOR,
S/O SRI SHIVAJ KOLEKAR,
APT POST, ZEDKEY TALUK,
BHIWANDI DISTIRCT, THANE,
MAHAASHTRA-421 302.
2
(OWNER OF LORY NO.MH-04-EY-4452)
& RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURSHA M, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2018 PASSED IN MFA
NO.3088/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON9BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
IN R.P.NO.271/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
SRI. B. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SEETHA RAMA RAO B C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PRAMILA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRINIVASA @ SEENAPPA,
2. MR.SHASHIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRINIVASA @ SEENAPPA,
3. MR.NAGARAJUNA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRINIVASA @ SEENAPPA,
4. SMT.RATNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, RESPONDENT NO.1,
3
ALL ARE RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS,
VIJINAPURA, SUBRAMANI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560016
5. SRI.SANJAY SHIVAJI KOLEKAR,
MAJOR, S/O SHIVAJ KOLEKAR,
RESIDING AT APT POST, ZEDKEY TALUK,
BHIWANDI DISTRICT, THANE,
MAHARASHTRA-421 202.
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.MH-04-EY-4452)
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SURESHA M, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2018 PASSED IN MFA
NO.4355/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON9BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
IN R.P.NO.272/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
SRI. B. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SEETHA RAMA RAO B C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.KIRAN KUMAR @ KIRAN BABU,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS V.
NO.2263, SUBRAMANYA LAYOUT,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 016.
4
2. SRI. SANJAN SHIVAJI KOLEKAR, MAJOR,
S/O SRI. SHIVAJ KOLEKAR,
APT POST, ZEDKEY TALUK,
BHIWANDI DISTRICT, THANE,
MAHARASTRA-421 302.
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.MH-04-EY-4452)
3. MRS. BERGGUREN CAR RENTALS PVT. LTD.,
NO. 16, GAJENDRA NAGAR, 18TH CROSS
ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 030.
(OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-01-AA-7251)
4. M/S. ICICI LOMBOARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
S.V.R. COMPLEX, NO. 89, II FLOOR,
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2018 PASSED IN MFA NO.
3862/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON9BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
IN R.P.NO.274/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
SRI. B. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SEETHA RAMA RAO B C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O LATE ESAIAH @ ANDRA PULLAIAH,
2. SANTHOSHI @ SANTHOSHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
D/O LATE ESAIAH @ ANDRA PULLAIAH,
5
3. SWATHI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O LATE ESAIAH @ ANDRA PULLAIAH,
4. RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O LATE ESAIAH @ ANDRA PULLAIAH,
ALL ARER/AT NO.12/2,3RD CROSS,
VIJINAPURA, SUBRAMANI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 016.
5. SRI. SANJAY SHIVAJI KOLEKAR,MAJOR
S/O SHIVAJ KOLEKAR,
R/AT APT POST, ZEDKEY TALUK,
BHIWANDI DISTRICT, THANE,
MAHARASTRA-421 202.
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.MH-04-EY-4452)
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUESHA M, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2018 PASSED IN MFA NO.
4359/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON9BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THESE
REVIEW
PETITIONS
COMING
ON
FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Petitioners seek review of the common judgment
dated 24.07.2018 whereby the subject appeals were
disposed off. The grounds for review as stated in the
review petition read as under:
6
In R.P.No.273/2018:
<1.
The judgment dated 24-07-2018
made in MFA No.3088/2015 has adversely
affected the interest of the Petitioner as a
connected
appeal
arising
out
the
same
accident is still pending before the Division
bench of this Hon9ble. Since both the appeals
arise out of a the same accident and the issue
of negligence finding is the challenged in all
the case, the Petitioner prays for reviewing
Judgment dated 24-07-2018 and to restore
the same for being decided along with the
connected matters.
2.
The petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has filed an application under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the
MVC No.874/2014 and obtained leave of the
Trial Court to take all defences available to
the insured. This aspect had not been
brought to the notice of this Hon9ble Court
while arguing the present batch of cases
before passing the Judgment dated 24-07-
2018 in MFA No.4359/2017.
3.
The petitioner submits that, at the
time of arguments, It was not brought to the
notice of this Hon9ble Court with regard to the
pendency of MFA No.3861/2016 before the
Division bench of this Hon9ble Court. Since
there are 5 claims petitions arising out of the
same accident and the apportionment of
negligence between the two offending vehicles
is the primary ground of appeal in all the 5
appeals
i.e.,
MFA
No.3088/2015,
MFA
No.4355/2017, MFA No.3861/2016 and MFA
No.3862/2016 all the appeals requires to be
taken up for consideration at the same time.
7
Since one of the appeals is still pending
consideration and the fact that, there is a stay
order in operation in the said appeal, it is just
and necessary to review the judgment and to
decide both the appeals together.=
IN R.P.NO.271/2018:
1. The judgment dated 24-07-2018
made in MFA No.4355/2017 has adversely
affected the interest of the petitioner as a
connected appeal arising out of the same
accident is till pending before the Division
Bench of this Hon9ble Court. Since both the
appeals arise out of the same accident and
the issue of negligence finding is the challenge
in all the cases, the petitioner prays for
reviewing judgment dated 24-07-2018 and to
restore the same for being decided along with
the connected matters.
2. The petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed an application under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in MVC
No.874/2014 and obtained leave of the Trial
Court to take all defences available to the
insured. This aspect had not been brought to
the notice of this Hon9ble Court while arguing
the present batch of cases before passing the
Judgment dated 24-07-2018.
3. The petitioner submits that, at the
time of arguments, it was not brought to the
notice of this Hon9ble Court with regard to the
pendency of MFA No.3861/2016 before the
Division bench of this Hon9ble Court. Since
there are 5 claim petitions arising out of the
same accident and the apportionment of
negligence
between
the
two
offending
8
vehicles is the primary ground of appeal in all
the 5 appeals i.e., MFA No.3088/2015, MFA
No.4355,
MFA
No.4359/2017,MFA
No.3861/2016 and MFA No.3862/2016 all the
appeals
requires
to
be
taken
up
for
consideration at the same time. Since one of
the appeals is still pending consideration and
the fact that, there is a stay order in operation
in the said appeal, it is just and necessary to
review the judgment and to decide both the
appeals together.=
In R.P.No.272/2018:
<1. The judgment dated 24-07-2018
made in MFA No.3862/2016 has adversely
affected the interest of the Petitioner as the
appeal arising out of common Judgment made
by the MACT at Bengaluru, SCCH-15 in
MVC.Nos.873 & 874/2014 is till pending. The
petitioner submits that MFA.No.3862/2016
A/o
MVC.No.874/2014
and
MFA.No.3861/2016
A/o
MVC.No.873/2014
which is pending consideration. Since both the
appeals arise out of
