Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The National Insurance Company ... vs M.Natarajan, S/O.Manikkam, Trichi ... on 12 October, 2012
Author: K.G.Shankar
Bench: K.G.Shankar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Review M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3790 of 2011 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2956 of 2005
12-10-2012
The National Insurance Company Limited,Rep. by its Branch Manager,Rajahmundry
M.Natarajan, S/o.Manikkam, Trichi Road, Dugai, Selam District, Tamil Nadu; and
another
Gorrela Bhavani, W/o.Ramana, Dowlaiswaram, Behind Canal Guest House, Near Locks;
and 2 others
Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. M.Bhaskara Lakshmi
Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: ---
Counsel for respondents 3 to 5: Sri K.Venkata Rao
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2012 (3) Supreme 197
2. 2009 ACJ 1298
3. 2011 ACJ 2418
(Review M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3790 of 2011
in
M.A.C.M.A.No.2956 of 2005)
Order:
The 3rd respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.2956 of 2005 laid the present review
petition seeking to review the order of the Court passed on 12-11-2010. The
order was passed by Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed. As his Lordship had since laid
down the office, the review came up before me.
2. Smt. M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the review
petitioner-insurer, submitted that the Tribunal determined the income of the
deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month while Ex.A-6 Salary Certificate discloses the
gross salary of the deceased at Rs.4,400/- and the net salary of the deceased at
Rs.4,058/- per month and that the learned Judge by oversight determined the
salary at Rs.6,000/- per month.
The learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the review petitioner seeks to review
this part of the judgment treating the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,400/- per
month or Rs.4,058/- per month and to work out the amount of compensation.
3. Sri K.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the claimants, attacked the review
petition on the ground that the review petition does not lie from the judgment
in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for
short). He claimed that the entire gamut of the Act does not speak about review
powers.
I however do not wish to go into the question of the review powers of the Court
as this review deserves to be disposed of on merits. The learned counsel for
the claimants submitted that Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd.1
considered the ratio in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 regarding
the future prospects and held:
"14. ... ... ... In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total
emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed
salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same
throughout his life. ... ... ..."
The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Court thus is empowered
to grant additional amounts towards the future prospects.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants also placed reliance upon Ranjana
Prakash v. D.M., New India Assurance Co. Ltd.3. In that case, the High Court
did not consider the future prospects of the income of the deceased on the
ground that the claimants did not challenge the award on that count. The
Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that the High Court is entitled to
pass orders which ought to have been passed by the trial Court in order to
render complete justice between the parties even if the claimants had not filed
any appeal or cross-objections. On the basis of these decisions, it is
contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the judgment of the High
Court cannot be assailed regarding the income of the deceased.
5. I may reproduce the order of the High Court under impugnment regarding
the salary:
"5. ... ... ... PW-3, who is working as accountant in Nagarjuna Engineering
College, Bangalore deposed that the deceased was working as canteen manager of
their college and he was drawing gross salary of Rs.4,400/- per month and net
salary of Rs.4,058/- per month excluding other incentives Ex.A-6 is the salary
certificate issued by General Secretary of Nagarjuna Education Society to the
effect that the deceased was working as hostel manager since six years. Since
the deceased was working as Hostel Manager, ends of justice would be met if
Rs.6,000/- per month is taken as salary of the deceased and per annum it comes
to Rs.72,000/- (6000x12=72,000) and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount wards
personal and living expenses the amount comes to Rs.48,000/- (72,000/3=24,000-
72,000= 48,000). ... ... ..."
6. A reading of the order quoted above shows that the High Court was conscious
that the claimants urged that the deceased was earning Rs.4,400/- as gross
salary and Rs.4,058/- as net salary through Ex.A-6 Salary Certificate and that
the High Court considered
it appropriate to determine the salary at Rs.6,000/-. Thus, the order of the
High Court in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month
appears to be a conscious exercise of its powers by the High Court. In that
view of the matter, I am afraid that the order cannot be subjected to review.
7. I therefore see no merits in this review petition as I consider that the High
Court consciously and deliberately arrived at the income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- per month and that the same cannot be questioned in a review. This
review petition therefore is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
__________________
K.G.SHANKAR, J.
12th October, 2012.