Meena Raju vs Velmurugan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5139 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA,
                             1945
                      RP NO. 454 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 778/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                            KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELANT:

           MEENA RAJU
           W/O LATE RAJU PHILOPOSE,
           AGED 58 YEARS
           RESIDING AT POOMATTATHIL HOUSE, PERINGAZHA
           KARA, PERUMBALLOOR P.O, MARADY VILLAGE,
           MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
           (SUBSTITUTED RAJU PHILOPOSE (DIED) AS PER ORDER
           DATED 13.02.2023 IN IA NO.1/2023 IN MACA
           NO.778/2021)., PIN - 686673
           BY ADV DILEEP VARGHESE


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      VELMURUGAN
           S/O RAMACHALLAYA K,
           NO.14, NEHRU NAGAR, 3RD CROSS STREET, CHENNAI.,
           PIN - 600032
    2      MANU GEORGE
           S/O GEORGE, NELLOOR HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR KARA,
           PERUMBALLOOR P.O, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE,
           MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 686673
    3      RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
           MANTRA INSURANCE 68A/580, 1ST FLOOR, MITHUN
           COMPLEX, E K VALASU, ERODE., PIN - 638011
        THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP 454/23
                               ..2..


                            ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment dated

15.03.2023, is well founded because, this Court has omitted to

grant eligible compensation under the head 'Disability', even

after reckoning the notional income of the appellant and his

percentile of disability.

2. In fact, Smt.Latha Susan Cherian - learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company, very fairly conceded that

the afore was only an omission; and that she will not stand in

the way of adequate compensation being ordered.

3. In the afore circumstances, I allow this review and

modify the judgment by adding the following paragraph as (aa)

in the operative portion:

(aa). The compensation under the head 'Disability' is

enhanced to Rs.3,88,800/-, from Rs.1,94,400/-, reckoning the

notional income of the appellant to be Rs.20,000/- per month

and the percentile of his disability to be 18%, as observed

above.

In all other respects, the judgment will remain unaltered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ACR