IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE REVIEW PETITION NO.84 OF 2019 IN MFA NO.1397 OF 2010 (WC) Between:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Peenya Bengaluru Now by Regional Office LEO Shopping Complex 44/45, Residency Road Bengaluru – 560 001 Rep by its Manager Lynette Suares (by Shri S.Y. Shivalli, Advocate) And:
1. Sri Narayanaswamy Aged Major No.88, Ramagondanahalli Whitefield Bengaluru 560066 2. Sri M. Govindan @ Govindappa @ Gundappa S/o Muniswamy …Petitioner Aged about 57 years Residing At No.45 3rd Cross, Shivajinagar Bengaluru 560 001 …Respondents This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 3 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to review and then call the jt dated 14.02,.2019 made in MFA No.1397 of 2010 filed by the claimant second rt in view of jt dated 31.01.2011 passed by this Court in MFA No.338/2010; and etc.
This Review Petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1397 of 2010 filed by the appellant seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner came to be allowed vide Judgment dated 14th February, 2019 by enhancing the compensation in an extent of Rs.50,832/-. This Review Petition is filed by the Insurer seeking to review the judgment dated 14th February, 2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel. The ground raised in the review petition is that at the instance of petitioner, fastening liability on the petitioner is set aside in M F A No.338/2010. The petitioner was represented in M F A No.1397/2010 (WC). The judgment in M F A No.338/2010 disposed of on 31.01.2011 was not brought to the notice of the Court. Having failed to bring judgment to the notice of the Court, now it cannot be a ground to seek review of the judgment. On considering certain set of facts, relief is granted under a beneficial legislation. The said relief cannot be taken away in a review petition. The judgment having produced and if it was not considered, that could have been taken as an error apparent of face of the record. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no ground made out to interfere in the judgment dated 14th February, 2019.
Review petition accordingly stands rejected.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn