- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO.100144 OF 2024 IN MFA NO.100456 OF 2021 C/W MFA NO.103226 OF 2023 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER MICRO OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUKATLI BUILDING, HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI - 58/1 1112, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, NK COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, THROUGH ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGANAGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HULIGEMMA SINCE DEAD BY L.R'S, HANUMANTAPPA S/O ERAPPA AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 2. B. WANI W/O HANUMANTAPPA AGE. 24 YEARS OCC. STUDENT, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 3. B.NANDINI W/O HANUMANTAPPA AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, RESP. NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O SHIVAJI NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, HAVERI, C/O R. V. PATIL, SHIVAJI NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, HAVERI - 591 112. 4. SREEDHAR K. S/O NARAYANACHAR K., AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO.352, 10TH MAIN, BSK MUKKERI ONI, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU -560050. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, REVIEW THE COMMON JUDGMENTS DATED 04.09.2023 IN MFA NO.100456/2021 CONNECTED WITH MFA NO.103226/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This Review Petition is filed by the Insurance Company under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the common judgment dated 04th - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 September 2023, passed in MFA No.100045 of 2021 connected with MFA No.103226/2023. 2. Sri N.R. Kuppelur, learned Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner would submit that after the receipt of judgments in the above Miscellaneous First Appeals, the Insurance Company has noticed that the salary of the deceased for the month of September 2016 was Rs.20,650/- as per Exhibit P27, but this Court has considered the same at Rs.23,000/- per month and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency, which is on the higher side. He would further submit that the salary of the deceased for the month of May 2016 was Rs.23,341/- and the same has been reduced from June 2016 till September 2016. In the month of September 2016, the salary received by the deceased was Rs.20,650/- only. Hence, the same needs to be considered for avoiding the compensation towards loss of dependency. Along with the Review Petition, learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner has also filed IA.I of 2024 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 197 days in filing this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 Review Petition. IA.II of 2024 is filed seeking stay of operation and execution of the impugned judgment. 3. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner on merits as well as on Interlocutory Applications. 4. During the course of judgment, at paragraph 15, we have observed thus: "….The Branch Manager of IDFC Bank is examined as PW1 and produced appointment letter as per Exhibit P19 and also produced Pay slips as per Exhibits P20 to P27. Perusal of Exhibits P11 reveals that the salary of the deceased for May 2016 is Rs.23,341/-. Exhibit P22 is the salary slip for the month of April shows that the salary of the deceased for the month of April 2016 is Rs.22,247/-; Exhibit P24 is the salary for the month of June 2016 which reveals the salary as Rs.22,794/-; as per Exhibit P25 is salary slip for the month of July, 2016 at Rs.22,794/-; Exhibit P26 is August 2016 salary for Rs.21,294/- Exhibit P27 is September 2016 salary for Rs.20,650/-. Accordingly, it is just and proper to assess the salary at Rs.23,000/- per month." 5. The material on record discloses that Salary slips- Exhibit P24 and P25 pertaining to the months of June and July - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 2016 respectively, would reveal that salary of the deceased was Rs.22,794/-. Exhibit P26 is the salary slip pertaining to the month of August, 2016 which reveals that the salary of the deceased was Rs.21,294/-. The deceased was aged 26 years as on the date of accident, and he was working as Senior Officer in IDFC bank and was drawing Rs.23,341/- plus yearly bonus and perks. Keeping in mind all these aspects, we have assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs.23,000/- per month, which is just and proper. There is no patent illegality or error in the assessment of income of the deceased. The same is based on oral and documentary evidence placed before us. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned judgments in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeals No.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer – 2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein at paragraph 16 of the judgment, it is held as under:- "16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8159-DB RP No. 100144 of 2024 (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 7. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the common impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. In view of the disposal of the review petition, interim applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2