Karnataka High Court
Dinakar Ullal S/O. Devachanda vs M/S. United Insurance Co. Ltd., on 11 April, 2014
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NOS.1634/2013 IN MFA NO.11790/2007
C/W
1635/2013 IN MFA NO.11791/2007,
1636/2013 IN MFA NO.11792/2007,
1637/2013 IN MFA NO.11793/2007,
1638/2013 IN MFA NO.11794/2007
IN R.P.No.1634/2013
BETWEEN
DINAKAR ULLAL S/O. DEVACHANDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PADDALA HOUSE, PERAMANNUR
MANGALORE-575 017. ..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSH DESAI, ADV.)
AND
1. M/S. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BALAMATI BRANCH,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD.
2. THIPPANNA KARABASAPPA TALLALLI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. RATTIGERI, TQ:KUNDAGOL
DIST: DHARWAD. ..... RESPONDENTS
:2:
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD:04.07.2013 PASSED
IN THE MFA NO.11790/2007 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
IN R.P.No.1635/2013
BETWEEN
DINAKAR ULLAL S/O. DEVACHANDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PADDALA HOUSE, PERAMANNUR
MANGALORE-575 017. ..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSH DESAI, ADV.)
AND
1. M/S. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BALAMATI BRANCH,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD.
2. MALLAPPA NINGAPPA GOWDAGERI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. RATTIGERI, TQ:KUNDAGOL
DIST: DHARWAD. ..... RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD:04.07.2013 PASSED
IN THE MFA NO.11791/2007 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
IN R.P.No.1636/2013
BETWEEN
DINAKAR ULLAL S/O. DEVACHANDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PADDALA HOUSE, PERAMANNUR
MANGALORE-575 017. ..... PETITIONER
:3:
(BY SRI HARSH DESAI, ADV.)
AND
1. M/S. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BALAMATI BRANCH,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD.
2. NINGAPPA SIDDAPPA KURUBARA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. RATTIGERI, TQ:KUNDAGOL
DIST: DHARWAD. ..... RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD:04.07.2013 PASSED
IN THE MFA NO.11792/2007 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
IN R.P.No.1637/2013
BETWEEN
DINAKAR ULLAL S/O. DEVACHANDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PADDALA HOUSE, PERAMANNUR
MANGALORE-575 017. ..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSH DESAI, ADV.)
AND
1. M/S. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BALAMATI BRANCH,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD.
2. SIDDAPPA RAMANNA IMMADI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
:4:
R/O. RATTIGERI, TQ:KUNDAGOL
DIST: DHARWAD. ..... RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD:04.07.2013 PASSED
IN THE MFA NO.11793/2007 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
IN R.P.No.1638/2013
BETWEEN
DINAKAR ULLAL S/O. DEVACHANDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PADDALA HOUSE, PERAMANNUR
MANGALORE-575 017. ..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSH DESAI, ADV.)
AND
1. M/S. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BALAMATI BRANCH,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD.
2. BASAVANNEVVA W/O MAHADEVAPPA TALLALLI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. RATTIGERI, TQ:KUNDAGOL
DIST: DHARWAD. ..... RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD:04.07.2013 PASSED
IN THE MFA NO.11794/2007 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:5:
ORDER
Owner of the offending vehicle is seeking for review of order passed by this Court in M.F.A.Nos.11790/2007, 11791/2007, 11792/2007, 11793/2007 and 11794/2007 dated 04.07.2013 whereunder the appeals filed by the Insurance Company came to be allowed by exonerating the Insurer of its liability and fastening the same on the owner who is the review petitioner.
2. This court after considering the evidence on record and rival contentions raised in this regard has held as under:
"16. In M.V.C.No.309/2011 xxx xxx issued by them. Therefore, unless it is shown by the claimants that on the date of the accident they were travelling in the lorry as authorized passengers along with goods or they are coolies working under the first respondent, the risk of the claimants is not :6: covered under the policy issued by the insurance company. NFPP premium that has been paid as observed by the Tribunal is in respect of the persons who are charterers or authorized agents of the owner of the goods travelling in the lorry. Unfortunately, the tribunal has misconstrued the said premium paid as covering the risk of these persons also in the absence of any material. As the evidence on record clearly discloses that the claimants, who are not coolies working under the first respondent and as they were not travelling in the vehicle as charterers or authorized agents of the goods, their risk is not covered under the policy issued by the appellant/insurance company."
3. In the present review petitions, owner contends that additional premium was paid by him to cover the risk of coolies and claimants were travelling in the offending lorry as coolies which aspect has not been considered by this Court by proper appreciation of evidence and as such, he is seeking review of the order. :7:
4. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the review is permissible under the grounds enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and within that limited sphere when the grounds urged in the review petitions are examined, it would indicate that this Court had considered the very same plea now urged in the review petition at the time of passing the final order. Review petitioner was duly represented and has urged the very same grounds before this Court in the appeal which came to be considered and rejected. There is no error apparent on the face of the record nor there has been non-consideration of available material on record to enable this Court to review the order. Hence, no merit in these review petitions. Accordingly, they are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Jm/-