Kerala High Court
Jayan.M vs The Branch Manager on 12 September, 2025
2025:KER:67894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/21ST BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 924 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2025 IN MACA
NO.204 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 JAYAN M., AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN, JAYESH BHAVAN,
IHDP COLONY, PANAYAM, YEROOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 691312
2 JAYESH J., AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O. JAYAN, JAYESH BHAVAN,
IHDP COLONY, PANAYAM, YEROOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT- PIN - 691312
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
PULIMOOTTIL BUILDING, P B NO.17,
R.P. No.924/2025 in MACA No.204/2022 2 2025:KER:67894
POST OFFICE JUNCTION,
PUNALUR-, PIN - 691305
BY ADV. SRI. P.M.M. NAJEEB KHAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.08.2025, THE COURT ON 12.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P. No.924/2025 in MACA No.204/2022 3 2025:KER:67894
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment
dated 13.06.2025 passed in M.A.C.A. No.204/2022.
2. The review petitioners are the appellants in M.A.C.A.
No.204/2022, which was filed seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded in O.P.(MV). No.541/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The said original petition was filed seeking
compensation on account of the death of one Ambily, who died in a
motor accident that occurred on 15.07.2013. By judgment dated
13.06.2025, this Court, after hearing both sides and upon perusal of
records, allowed the appeal by enhancing compensation by a further
amount of Rs.2,30,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of
deposit after deducting interest for a period of 527 days, i.e., the
period of delay in preferring the appeal.
3. The appellants have now filed this review petition mainly
contending that while passing the impugned judgment, this Court
R.P. No.924/2025 in MACA No.204/2022 4 2025:KER:67894
failed to make 10% periodical enhancement to the amount granted as
compensation under the conventional heads and hence, failed to
comply with the directions of the constitutional bench decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662]. In the review petition, it is
contended that the non-compliance of the directions issued in the said
constitutional bench decision itself is an error apparent on the face of
the record, warranting interference by way of review. It is further
contended that this Court erred in applying the correct age of the
deceased while determining the compensation, and also failed to treat
the husband of the deceased as a dependent of the deceased.
4. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and
pursued the impugned judgment.
5. Undoubtedly, the provision contained under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon the tribunal as well as the Court to ensure that the
compensation awarded under various heads is just, fair, reasonable,
and adequate, irrespective of the claim made by the parties. As rightly
R.P. No.924/2025 in MACA No.204/2022 5 2025:KER:67894
pointed out in the review petition in Pranay Sethi (supra), certain
guidelines and directions were issued by the Apex Court to be followed
while dealing with claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. Being
a constitutional bench decision, it is obligatory on the part of this Court
to follow the dictum laid down in the said case.
6. However, while considering the appeal, this Court found
that the tribunal omitted to award compensation under the head of
loss of consortium in favour of the 2nd petitioner/2nd appellant, who is
none other than the minor son of the deceased. Considering the close
relationship and emotional bondage of the minor child with his
deceased mother, this Court, by the impugned judgment, awarded an
amount of Rs.48,400/- as compensation under the head of loss of
consortium in his favour after applying the periodical enhancement
directed by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. It is pertinent to
note that in the award dated 06.07.2018, passed by the tribunal itself,
compensation under loss of consortium had already been granted in
favour of the 1st petitioner, the husband of the deceased. Likewise,
the tribunal awarded reasonable and adequate compensation under
R.P. No.924/2025 in MACA No.204/2022 6 2025:KER:67894
other conventional heads at the time of passing the said award itself.
The compensation so awarded by the tribunal was duly deposited by
the insurance company. Therefore, no periodical enhancement as
contemplated in Pranay Sethi (supra) is required in respect of the
compensation amount awarded by the tribunal under conventional
heads.
7. Likewise, the findings of this Court in the impugned
judgment that the husband of the deceased cannot be treated as a
dependent, cannot be said to suffer from any error apparent on the
face of the record. The question of dependency was duly considered
on the basis of available evidence, and the findings so entered cannot
be reopened in review proceedings. What is sought in this review
petition is a re-appreciation of facts, which is not permissible within the
limited scope of review jurisdiction.
8. As regards the contention relating to the age of the
deceased, it is seen that both the tribunal and this Court had taken the
age of the deceased as 40 years. Though reliance is placed on the
entry in the postmortem certificate, which records the age of the
R.P. No.924/2025 in MACA No.204/2022 7 2025:KER:67894
deceased as 38 years, the same by itself is not a conclusive or
convincing document to establish the actual age of the deceased.
Moreover, the petitioners have not produced any reliable materials or
documents to prove the true age of the deceased. Hence, I find no
illegality or error in the finding entered in the impugned judgment with
respect to the age of the deceased. Therefore, in my considered view,
there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned
judgment warranting interference by way of review.
In the result, the review petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
