IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.259 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd., Regional Office Subharam Compound No.144, M.G.Road Bengaluru – 560 001 Rep. by its Manager … Petitioner (By Sri M.Narayanappa, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri Moula Ali @ Mala Ali S/o Hyderali Aged about 32 years R/at No.35, Kondappa Layout Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560 064 2. M/s Ryan International School Unit of St. Xaviers Education Trust Vedarepura village Gautiganahalli, Yelahanka Bengaluru – 560 064 ...Respondents (By Sri H.C.Shivaramu, Advocate for R2; R1 – served, unrepresented) This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1(2) of CPC praying to review the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed in MFA No.2219/2017, Annexure-A.
This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 remained absent. Though notice served to the respondent No.1, he remained absent.
2. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner-Insurance company contending that due to over site, while passing the order dated 24.04.2018, the liability has been fixed on the petitioner-Insurance company instead of fixing the liability on the respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
3. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the records.
4. As could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court dated 18.08.2016 passed in MVC No.4855/2014, the liability has been fixed on respondent No.2-M/s.Ryan International School, Unit of St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vedarepura Village, Gautiganahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. Due to over site, while passing the order dated 24.04.2018, this Court directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to deposit the amount and while depositing, it is at liberty to deduct the interest. The said mistake has been on the face of the record at page No.8 in para 10 of the judgment. Same requires to be rectified in this behalf.
5. Taking into consideration the above said aspects, registry is directed to incorporate at page No.8 in para 10 of the judgment, in the first line instead of the words ‘respondent No.1-Insurer’, it may be mentioned as ‘respondent No.2’ and the word ‘insurer’ may be struck off and in sub para 2 of para No.10 also instead of the word ‘respondent No.1’, it may be mentioned as ‘respondent No.2’ and the word ‘insurer’ may be deleted. If already certified copy has been obtained, the same may be secured and necessary correction may be carried out and thereafter, re-issue the certified copy.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-