IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
RP NO.153 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 1028/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA dtd.23/12/2021
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 MATHEW THOMAS
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS MATHEW, PADAPPAKKAL PUTHENVEEDU,
ARUVAPPPULAM.P.O,
KONNY.
2 LALAMMA RAJAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.MATHEW THOMAS, PADAPPAKKAL PUTHENVEEDU,
ARUVAPPULAM.P.O,
KONNY.
BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD., 24E, 12-A, SIVASAKTHI SHOPPING COMPLEX,
S.N.HIGH ROAD, THIRUNELVELI-627001.
BY ADV.SRI.R. AJITHKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P No.153 of 2022 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
R.P No.153 of 2022 IN
MACA No.1028 of 2018
------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
ORDER
This review petition has been filed by the appellants in MACA No.1028 of 2018, to review the judgment dated 23.12.2021 for an error apparent on the face of record.
2. According to the review petitioners, the deceased was a B.Com student aged only 18 years at the time of accident. His notional income was fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. But future prospects were not considered.
3. Relying on various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that, even though the deceased was not employed at the time of his death, he was entitled to get future prospects, by adding future rise in income @ 40%. The Apex Court, in Meena Pawaia & ors vs. Ashraf Ali & ors. (2022 (1) KLJ 179), was pleased to observe R.P No.153 of 2022 3 that 40% enhancement towards future prospects could have been granted, as the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Reliance was also placed on the decision Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Ekm and others vs. Vijayakumari and others (2021 (5) KHC 390) to substantiate his argument.
4. Heard both sides. Learned counsel Sri.R.Ajithkumar appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that, since the deceased was not employed, and he was not having any fixed income, future prospects ought not have been granted. But going by the judicial precedents, this Court is bound to give 40% enhancement towards future prospects, even though the deceased was only a student aged 18 at the time of death, having no fixed income. Since future prospects were omitted to be considered, it can be treated as an error apparent on the face of record, which could be reviewed.
The notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.10,000/-. By giving 40% enhancement, we have to fix his notional income @ Rs.14,000/-. By deducting 50% towards personal expenses as he was a bachelor, the multiplicand will be Rs.7,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation for R.P No.153 of 2022 4 loss of dependency can be calculated as Rs.15,12,000/- (7000x12x18). Rs.7,56,000/- was already awarded by the Tribunal. So he is entitled to get the difference i.e. Rs.7,56,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.
The review petition is allowed to that extent.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE smp