Kerala High Court
Vijayamma vs Sasikumar @ Sasi on 28 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Tuesday, the 28th day of May 2024 / 7th Jyaishta, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN MACA NO. 880 OF 2015 (D)
OP(MV) 214/2008 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPLICANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY MANAGER (LEGAL), KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 682 035.
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND 3RD RESPONDENT:
1. VIJAYAMMA, PULITHITTA THEKKETHIL (VIJAYA BHAVANAM), VEDARAPLAVU P.O,
CHARUMMOODU.
2. VINOD, PULITHITTA THEKKETHIL (VIJAYA BHAVANAM), VEDARAPLAVU P.O,
CHARUMMOODU.
3. BINDHU, PULITHITTA THEKKETHIL (VIJAYA BHAVANAM), VEDARAPLAVU P.O,
CHARUMMOODU.
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to correct the
judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A.C.A. 880 of
2015 by holding that the total additional compensation payable by the
applicant and the 4th respondent herein is Rs.10,39,880/- only with
interest.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of SRI. P.JACOB MATHEW, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No.5,
and M/S. GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), MANU SEBASTIAN, PARVATHY
NAIR & A.R.DILEEP, Advocates for the respondents 1 to 3/appellants and of
SRI. N.S NAJEEB, Advocate for respondent No.4/respondent No.3, the Court
passed the following:
P.T.O
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
========================
I.A.No. 1 of 2024
in
M.A.C.A.No. 880 of 2015
========================
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
ORDER
This application is submitted by the 5th respondent to correct
the judgment passed by this Court by rectifying the mistake in
adopting the multiplier applicable to the deceased and recalculate
the compensation on the basis of the same.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
opposed the said application contending that the prayer sought in
this petition is practically resulting in seeking review of the
judgment and, therefore, it is beyond the scope of I.A. now
submitted by the 5th respondent.
3. Even though, there is some force in the said contention,
I am of the view that, the judgment pronounced by this Court
requires some modification, in view of the fact that, as rightly
pointed by the 5th respondent, the multiplier applied in this case
I.A.No.1/24 in M.A.C.A. No.880/15
was not correct. When a mistake is pointed out in the
judgment, it is only proper that the said mistake is rectified
without resorting to technicalities in the procedure. Therefore, I
am of the view that this petition can be entertained and
necessary modifications in the judgment passed by this Court
on 12.12.2023 can be permitted to ensure that the compensation
is calculated on the basis of various decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard including the decision in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4)
KLT 662] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In such circumstances, this
application is allowed and the judgment dated 12.12.2023 is
hereby reviewed sou motu to rectify the mistakes pointed out
by the learned counsel.
4. It is seen from the materials placed before this Court
that, the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident
but while calculating the compensation for loss of dependency,
the multiplier applied is 18 whereas the proper multiplier
I.A.No.1/24 in M.A.C.A. No.880/15
applicable was 17 in the light of Sarla Verma's case (supra).
Therefore, the compensation granted for loss of dependency is
to be re-assessed by taking the multiplier as 17. Thus, the
compensation under this head was to be Rs.16,56,480/-
(11,600+40% x 12 x 17 x ½). The amount already awarded by
the Tribunal under this head was Rs.5,61,600/- and,
thus, the additional amount under this head would come to Rs.
10,94,880/-. Consequently, the total additional compensation is
revised as Rs.10,39,880/- [1094880+15000)- (60,000+10,000)].
In such circumstances, the judgment dated 12.12.2023 in the
above appeal is modified in the following manner:
i) The figures shown as "Rs.17,53,920/- (11,600 +
40% x 12 x 18x 1/2)" at paragraph 8 of the judgment shall
stand corrected and substituted as "Rs.16,56,480/- [11,600 +
40% x 12 x 17 x ½]".
ii) The figures shown as "Rs.11,92,320/-" in the last
sentence of the 8th paragraph of the judgment shall stand
corrected and substituted as "Rs.10,94,880/-"
I.A.No.1/24 in M.A.C.A. No.880/15
iii) The figures shown as "Rs.11,37,320/-
[(1192320+15,000) - (60,000 + 10,000)]" in paragraph 11 of
the judgment shall stand corrected and substituted as
"Rs.10,39,880/-[(1094880+15000)- (60,000+10,000)].
iv) The figure and words shown as "Rs.11,37,320/-
(Rupees Eleven lakhs thirty seven thousand three hundred and
twenty) in the operative portion of the judgment shall stand
corrected and substituted as "Rs.10,39,880/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
Thirtynine thousand Eight hundred and Eighty only)".
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
28-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
