SRI BHASKAR M KOTIAN vs SRI GREGORY D COSTA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
REVIEW PETITION NO. 244 OF 2026
IN
MFA 605 OF 2023(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BHASKAR M KOTIAN,
S/O MUDDU BELCHADA KEDHAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
REP BY GUARDIAN / WIFE
SMT ASHA BHASKAR KOTIAN
W/O BHASKAR KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT H NO. 2-65-D
NEAR BRAHMALINGESHWARA TEMPLE
UYAVARA,
UDUPI TALUK AND DIST-576101
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GREGORY D COSTA
S/O MICHAEL D COSTA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT ADYAPADY BAJPE POST
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-581320
2. THE MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE
3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT
217/A, 3RD MAIN,
OUTER RING ROAD
KASTUIR NAGAR,
BENGALURU -560043
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED.24.02.2026 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN MFA NO.605/2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
This review petition is filed seeking review of the
judgment dated 24th February 2026.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner
submits that the treated doctor has assessed the neurological
disability at 100%. Earlier, before the Tribunal, the evidence of
a non-treating doctor was recorded, who had assessed the
permanent disability at 59%. The Tribunal, without considering
the entire extent of disability, considered only 20% disability
for the purpose of awarding compensation, which, according to
the learned counsel, is on the lower side.
2.1 Learned counsel, inviting the attention of this Court to the
permanent disability certificate issued by the Senior Consultant
Neurosurgeon who had treated the claimant, submits that the
disability is required to be considered on the basis of the
certificate dated 05.02.2026.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer
submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered one-third of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
the permanent disability as whole-body disability for the
purpose of assessing compensation. It is submitted that the
evidence of the non-treating doctor, who assessed the
disability, was recorded before the Tribunal. The assessment of
disability cannot now be reconsidered on the basis of additional
evidence which was not before the Tribunal, particularly without
examining the doctor who has assessed the disability, as
sought by the review petitioner.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
5. Based on the evidence of PW-2, the non-treating doctor,
who assessed the permanent disability at 59%, the Tribunal
considered one-third of the same and assessed the whole-body
disability at 20% for the purpose of awarding compensation.
This Court, in the absence of any contrary evidence warranting
reassessment of the disability, confirmed the percentage of
disability at 20%.
5.1 In the present review petition, learned counsel has
produced a permanent disability certificate dated 05.02.2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
issued by the treating doctor, who is a Senior Consultant
Neurosurgeon. On a prima facie perusal of the said certificate,
the same cannot be accepted without examining its author and
affording an opportunity to the insurer to contest the same.
The said certificate constitutes additional evidence.
5.2 There is no restriction on producing additional evidence at
the appellate stage. However, such additional evidence can be
entertained only after affording an opportunity to the other
side. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in
review proceedings.
5.3 Though there is no prima facie error apparent on the face
of the record in the order sought to be reviewed, having regard
to the object of the beneficial legislation, which is to ensure
payment of just compensation, this Court is inclined to take a
lenient view, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case. Accordingly, the matter is required to be remanded
to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with liberty to the
claimant to lead further evidence insofar as the extent of
disability is concerned.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
6. In view of the above, the following order:
ORDER
allowed
(i) The review petition is .
(ii) The order dated 24th February 2026 passed in MFA
No. 605/2023 is modified.
(iii) The order passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.428/2020, pending on the file of Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Udupi,
is set aside.
(iv) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration insofar as the extent of disability is concerned.
(v) The claimant is at liberty to lead further evidence with
regard to the extent of disability. The insurer shall be afforded
an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned doctor and to
contest the additional evidence.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57014-DB
RP No. 244 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010309092026
(vi) The Tribunal shall thereafter reconsider the issue of
disability and consequential compensation and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10