IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1506 of 2004() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2003 IN IA 439/2003 IN OPMV.748/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- IRINGALATHODI PATHUMMA, W/O. LAT KUNNUMMAL ABOOBACKER, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, THACHAMGODE, CHUNGATHARA P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & R2 to R5/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 to 6: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MANJERI. 2. P.R. RAMACHANRAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, KIDANGARA P.O., VELIYANADU, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. T.G. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. K. GOVINDAN, THACHATTU HOUSE, P.O. AZHIDATHUCHIRA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SEBASTIAN, S/O. PUNOOSE, 5TH MILES, THACHARUPOIL, P.O. AMARAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. V.P. ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUTTYMOHAMMED VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, MARUTHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY THE PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1506 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in a petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal originally passed an award in favour of the appellant holding that she would be entitled to get a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- excluding the interim award of Rs.50,000/- passed under Section 140 of the Act. 2. But later, the said order was reviewed by the Tribunal on an application filed by respondent No.1- Insurance Company contending, inter alia, that the award was vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record, since it was agreed between the parties that the appellant would not be entitled to get the benefit of the interim award over and above the award of Rs.80,000/- passed in her favour. It was pointed out by the Insurance Company that the sum of Rs.80,000/- was quantified after reckoning the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/-. One- third was deducted from the monthly income of Rs.1,500/- and the multiplier of 5 was also adopted considering the age of the deceased (62 years). Though the total amount came to Rs.76,000/- by adopting the said method, the Company had agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- in full and final settlement of the entire claim. IMACA.1506/2004. : 2 : 3. But while passing the award the Tribunal had, by mistake directed that the sum of Rs.80,000/- shall be in addition to the compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act. 4. This mistake was sought to be corrected in the review petition. The Tribunal allowed the review petition and held that the appellant would be entitled to get only Rs.80,000/-. In other words, it was held that the final award will be inclusive of the interim award of Rs.50,000/-. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company and having perused the lower court records, we are of the view that a quietus can be given to the issue by directing the Insurance Company to pay a further sum of Rs.20,000/- over and above Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In other words, the appellant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. One lakh. It is made clear that the additional sum of Rs.20,000/- shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till the date of payment. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.