IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR REVIEW PETITION No.741/2012 IN MFA No.1964/2010 (MV) BETWEEN 1. MRS.SAFIA W/O MOIDEEN NAZIR @ ABDUL NAZIR AGED : 33 YEARS R/AT POOMAN HOUSE DOOR NO.1-151, TALAPADY POST & VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK 2. KUM.SUHANA, D/O MRS. SAFIA AGED: 15 YEARS, R/AT POOMAN HOUSE, DOOR NO.1-151, TALAPADY POST & VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS.SAFIA,PETITIONER NO.1. .. PETITIONERS (By Sri SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI V P GEORGE, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT VADAKKETHALA HOUSE POST: POOTHRAOKAL, CHERPU, THRISSUR,KERALA STATE:680561 2. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MALIEKAL BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA:680121 KERALA STATE 3. SRI. K. ABDUL NAZAR S/O AHMAMMED KABIR MAJOR, R/AT KAPPADA HOUSE, CHALEKUDY POST POTTA, KERALA STATE. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 & R3 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2011 PASSED IN MFA NO.1964/2010 (MV) ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The claimants have preferred this review petition seeking review of the order dated 19th August, 2011 made in MFA No.1964/2010 passed by this Court.
2. The facts of the case as follows:
The review petitioners filed a claim petition before the MACT, Mangalore, contending that while the husband of the 1st claimant and father of the 2nd claimant, deceased Abdul Nasir @ Moidin Nazir was proceeding on motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL 14 C 5671, near Uppala High School, a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KL 08/7579 came from Kasaragod side and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to that, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, they sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-
3. The Insurance Company defended the case contending that as on the date of accident, the offending tanker lorry was not having effective insurance coverage. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants.
4. After trial, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses awarded a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. The liability was fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle to compensate the claimants. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation preferred MFA No.1964/2010 before this Court. This Court by its judgment dated 19th August, 2011 dismissed the said appeal holding that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded just compensation. Since the insurance policy given to the offending vehicle was cancelled for bouncing of the cheque, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment passed by this Court in the said appeal filed SLP (Civil) CC No.5282/2012 before the Hon’ble Surpeme Court. When the said petition came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel appearing for the claimants sought for permission to withdraw the said special leave petition with liberty to file a review petition before this Court. Accordingly, the special leave petition has been dismissed. In view of that, the present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 19th August, 2011 passed in MFA No.1964/2010.
5. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. This Court after considering the arguments addressed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties found that the accident occurred in the year 2003. No document was produced to substantiate the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month. It was also found that as on the date of accident, the insurance policy issued to the offending vehicle was cancelled since the cheque issued by the owner of the offending vehicle was bounced. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a question of law that cannot be interfered in this review petition. In the guise of review petition, the petitioners cannot argue the matter afresh. The scope of review petition is very limited. The petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and order passed by this Court. There is no error apparent on the face of the records. Hence, I find that there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.