- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6304 RP No. 5 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PHILIP, S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ VINCENT, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, NO.24, B.S.A ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 084. 2. SMT. ROSEY, W/O MUTHUSWAMY T, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.312, 1ST CROSS, NEW BAGLUR LAYOUT, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 084. 3. JOSEPHINE, W/O PHILIP, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.312, 1ST CROSS, NEW BAGLUR LAYOUT, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 084. 4. DANIEL, S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ VINCENT SEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VALAJPET VELLORE, TAMILNADU-632 513. 5. GEORGE S., S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ VINCENT SEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6304 RP No. 5 of 2025 R/AT NO.17, 12TH CROSS, SAGYA PERRAN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 084. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR R. L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MOHAMMED SAFFI, S/O. S. MOHINDDIN BASHA, NO.1130, 17TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HRB LAYOUT, OPP. TO NARENDRA THEATERE, BENGALURU-560 043. 2. BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SURY NO.28, DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE, K. R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 3. SMT. ALICE MARY, W/O. LATE CARITON THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.312, 1ST CROSS, NEW BAGALUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 084. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2024, PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN MFA NO. 3933/24. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6304 RP No. 5 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Udaya Kumar R.L., learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This review petition is filed seeking the Court to re-visit its order, which was rendered on 03.09.2024 in MFA No.3933/2021. 3. The review petition is filed on the following grounds: (i) That the decisions that were rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others were not followed and no amount was awarded for transportation of the dead body. (ii) That the Notional Income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.14,500/- and not Rs.10,000/- per month. (iii) That just compensation was not awarded. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6304 RP No. 5 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,500/- as compensation and indeed the petitioners are entitled to a higher sum and therefore, the present review petition is filed. 5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- only as compensation. However, considering the pleas that were taken by these petitioners in the appeal and discussing at length the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai which is reported in AIR 1987 SC 1960, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case between B.V.Gopala and another vs. Mehaboob Pasha and others in MFA No.7318/2016 dated 23.10.2020 and also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.5319/2022 dated 16.07.2024, this Court enhanced the sum which is liable to be awarded as compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.4,36,500/-. 6. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation, they are entitled to agitate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6304 RP No. 5 of 2025 before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings. This Court has got no power to decide the matter again on merits, that too basing on the review petition filed by the petitioners. The scope of review is limited and well settled. None of the grounds urged comes under the purview of the powers of the Courts to review its decision. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the review petition lacks merits and deserves dismissal. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed along with I.A.No.1/2025. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34