The National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Jinu Joy
2022 Latest Caselaw 9740 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
   FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
                        RP NO. 688 OF 2022
              MACA 1261/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

         THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
         THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
         OMANA BUILDING,
         M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-35.
         PIN - 682035

         BY ADVS.
         LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
         GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)



RESPONDENT/S:

         JINU JOY
         S/O JOYKUTTY,
         PACHAYIL HOUSE,
         NEAR PANNIKUZHI JUNCTION,
         CHENNEERKARA VILAGE,
         ELAVUMTHITTA.P.O., PIN - 689625

         BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL




     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 688 OF 2022




                                -2-


                              ORDER

(Dated this the 26th day of August 2022)

This review petition is filed by the appellant in

M.A.C.A.No.1261 of 2017 on the ground that there is error

apparent on the face of record that this court has not

appraised the question whether Ext.P13 and P14 can be

accepted in evidence without being attested by the Indian

Embassy as per the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

(oaths and Fees) Act 1949 and that the

respondent/petitioner in the O.P.(M.V.) had stated clearly

in his claim petition that after his termination from his job

due to his complete incapability for driving, the injured

who do not know any other skill work had become a looser

at least a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. Without RP NO. 688 OF 2022

adverting to the said fact, this court had accepted the

finding of the Tribunal fixing the monthly income of

Rs.25,000/-, which is an error apparent on the face of the

record. The 2nd question that was raised is that the Tribunal

has no power to award penal interest under Section 177 of

the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

On going through the judgment as well as the grounds

raised in the Review Petition, I see that there are valid

contentions raised by the counsel for the review petitioner

to review the judgment as there is error apparent on the

face of record in the question of fixing the monthly income

of the claim for calculating the compensation for permanent

disability. Hence, the Review Petition is allowed. RP NO. 688 OF 2022

The judgment in M.A.C.A. No.1261 of 2017 is

recalled.

Post the M.A.C.A for hearing.

sd

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/