Mathew Thomas vs The Branch Manager, Oriental ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7544 Ker

          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

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

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