IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. THANKAPPAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2007 / 26TH ASHADHA 1929 RP.No. 361 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA.1209/1992 .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT. ------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.KARIPALIKKATTIL ABDULLAH, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. ------------------------- 1. P.UMMER, S/O.KUNJI KAMMU, PALATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (STRUCK OFF). 2. C.K.RAJIV, S/O.KUNJUNNI MENON, RADHA SADAN, KULAMANGALAM P.O., VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJERI. 4. PUTHUMADATHIL BABU, TANALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (STRUCK OFF). 5. M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., PONDICHERRY. RP. NO.361/2007 6. THE UNITED INSURANCE CO.LTD., MADRAS. 7. AMMALATH VELAYUDHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VETTAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX SRI.V.R.VENKATAKRISHNAN SRI.K.K.MOHAMMED RAVUF THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.THANKAPPAN, JJ. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.361 OF 2007 in M.F.A.No.1209 of 1992 ------------------------------------- Dated 17th July, 2007 ORDER Koshy,J . The review petitioner/appellant at the age of 16 met with an accident on 5.6.1987 by which his tibia was fractured and there were some injuries on the bladder etc. Doctor certified 30% disability. According to the petitioner, at least Rs.1,250/= ought to have been fixed as the monthly income. If that be so, the dependency compensation payable will be Rs.1,250 x 12 x 16 x 30 = Rs.72,000/=. But, in 100 paragraph four of the judgment, it is stated as follows: “The appellant was aged 16 at the time of the accident. 30% is the disability certified by the doctor. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, a multiplier of 16 can be adopted and his notional income can be fixed as Rs.1,250/= per month.” That is the submission of the appellant. It is further directed as follows: “On the basis of the above, he would get only Rs.24,000/= towards permanent disability.' But, the following sentence in between was omitted to be typed: R.P.361/2007 2 “Even though notional income was fixed as Rs.15,000/= per year when second schedule was framed in 1994, the accident occurred in 1987 and, therefore, annual notional income for a 16 year old boy in 1987 need be fixed as Rs.5,000/= only.” Therefore, we have calculated the compensation as Rs.24,000/= (Rs.5,000 x 16 x 30) taking Rs.5,000/= as the 100 annual notional income. But, we noticed that Rs.35,000/= was granted for permanent disability by the Tribunal and hence it was held that no further amount is payable. We also noticed that total compensation granted for the alleged 30% disability in 1987 was Rs.1,00,000/=, that too with 12% interest from the date of application till deposit. Since just and reasonable compensation was awarded, we refused to interfere in the matter. We see no ground to review the judgment. The review petition is dismissed with the above observation. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.THANKAPPAN JUDGE tks