National Insurance Company, ... vs P.P.Pribin Francis

Kerala High Court

National Insurance Company, ... vs P.P.Pribin Francis on 21 May, 2024

Author: Mary Joseph

Bench: Mary Joseph

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                          RP NO. 432 OF 2024
ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2023 IN MACA NO.3296 OF 2014


REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

             NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
             REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER(LEGAL)
             2ND FLOOR, DAMODAR CHAMBERS, STATUE JUNCTION,
             TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER, LEGAL,
             KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE- 682 035,
             PIN - 682 035

             BY ADV KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE


RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4:

    1        P.P.PRIBIN FRANCIS,
             C/O.P.P.S DHILLAN, WEST WALER'S, ASI BUILDERS,
             MALOTH ROAD, THEVARA, COCHIN 13, PIN - 682 013

    2        2. K.P.THULASIDAS
             11/610, KASUVALAPPIL HOUSE, FORT COCHIN,
             PIN - 682 001

    3        D'CRUZ ANTONY
             XI/784, LANE NO.1, BISHOP GARDEN PATTALAM,
             COCHIN, PIN - 682 001

    4        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
             BRANCH OFFICE III, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, COCHIN.
             REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, PIN - 682 011

     THIS    REVIEW   PETITION     HAVING   COME   UP    FOR   HEARING    ON
21.05.2024,     THE   COURT   ON    THE     SAME   DAY    DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.432 of 2024 in
M.A.C.A.No.3296 of 2014

                                 2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024 This petition is filed seeking to review the judgment passed by this Court for the reason that for the period of delay in filing the appeal, interest was not waived as well as the age of the victim injured of the motor accident was taken as 21 years instead of 26 years.

2. From the award passed by the Tribunal, it is noticed that the age of the victim injured was taken by the Tribunal as 26 years. From the records of the case, this Court finds that evidence has not been adduced by the petitioner before the Tribunal to establish his age. No challenge was also seen raised in the appeal memorandum against the age of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal as 26 years. Therefore, this Court has also to take 26 years as the age of the petitioner. But due to oversight it was shown in the judgment as 21 years and the multiplier appropriate to that age was adopted while calculating compensation.

R.P.No.432 of 2024 in M.A.C.A.No.3296 of 2014 3

3. This Court is convinced on perusal of the records of the case that correction sought in the review petition was in respect of an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the petition is allowed.

4. In paragraph 13 of the judgment where the age mentioned as "21 years" is replaced by "26 years" and '18' mentioned as multiplier is replaced by '17'. In the very same paragraph, for the figures, "`2,48,400/- (`5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 23/100)" , "`2,34,600/- (`5,000/- x 12 x 17 x 23/100)" are substituted. The figures, "`71,760/- (`2,48,400/- - `1,76,640/-)" shall also be substituted by "`57,960/- (`2,34,600/- - `1,76,640/-)".

5. In paragraph 14 of the judgment instead of '`71,760/-', '`57,960/'- shall be substituted.

6. The figure, '`1,04,260/-' occurring in paragraph 14 and the last paragraph shall be substituted by the figure '`90,460/-'.

7. In the last paragraph of the judgment, "Interest for the period of delay of 841 days in filing the appeal is waived"

R.P.No.432 of 2024 in M.A.C.A.No.3296 of 2014 4 shall also be incorporated.

Carry out corrections in the judgment sought to be reviewed accordingly.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ