Rajender Kumar And Others v. Rambhai And Others

Order

1. Leave granted. This appeal filed by the children of the deceased, Smt Susheela Bai who died in a motor accident on 12-12-1988, is directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reviewing order dated 9-8-1999 and reducing the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus: the accident occurred due to a collision between a bus owned by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Respondent 3 herein, and a lorry owned by Respondent 1 and insured with Respondent 2. In the said accident, Smt Susheela Bai, who was a passenger in the bus, sustained multiple injuries and expired on the same day. Her children, who are the appellants herein, filed an application claiming Rs 3,50,000 as compensation for death of their mother. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record awarded a sum of Rs 65,300 in favour of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants herein filed an appeal in the High Court.

3. The learned Single Judge who decided the appeal enhanced the compensation and determined the compensation at Rs 96,000 with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Still not satisfied with the amount awarded, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 176 of 1999, which was decided by the Division Bench vide the judgment dated 9-8-1999.

4. The Division Bench further enhanced the compensation amount to Rs 2,55,000 with 12% interest. Thereafter, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Respondent 2 herein, sought review of the judgment on the ground that it was not granted proper opportunity of hearing in the LPA. The Division Bench by the order dated 3-4-2001 allowed the review petition and reduced the compensation amount from Rs 2,55,000 to Rs 1,83,000. The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. On a perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Court without considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of reappreciating the evidence and on such reappreciation of evidence redetermined the compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier.

6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.

7. Coming to the merits of the case, suffice it to say that on perusal of the order, which has been reviewed by the order under challenge did not suffer from any serious illegality, which called for correction by exercise of review jurisdiction.

8. It is relevant to note here that the deceased was holding the post of Supervisor in Women and Child Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka at the time of her death and she was aged about 48 years at that time. The salary drawn by the deceased, as evident from the salary certificate produced as additional evidence was Rs 2570 p.m The multiplier, which had been accepted by the Division Bench in the previous order, was 10. In the circumstances of the case, multiplier of 10 was rightly taken. Thus, on merit also no interference with the order was called for.

9. For the reasons set forth above, both on the ground of maintainability of the petition as well as on merit, the order reviewing the judgment is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 176 of 1999 dated 9-8-1999 is restored. No costs.