IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 R.P.No.215 of 2011 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.1343/2005 Dated 13/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER / 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA RESPONDENTS : PETITIONER/IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MR.P.R.SOMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RADHAVAN, PALAKKATTU VEEDU, KIZHAKKENADA, VAIKOM PO, 686 141. 2. P.M.RAPHAEL,PAPPALI HOUSE, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA 683 101. 3. ANIL KUMAR.K.P.,KANICHAPPILLY VEETTIL, KANJOOR PO, ALUVA- 683 575. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.215 OF 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.1343 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 ORDER Basheer, J. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondent at this stage. 2. This review petition is at the instance of the insurer of the vehicle which had allegedly collided against another vehicle resulting in certain injuries to respondent No.1 herein who was travelling in the insured vehicle. The specific case of the claimant was that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle. The Tribunal however took the view that since it was a collision between two vehicles the owner, driver and insurer of both vehicles should be held liable to pay the compensation. 3. The Tribunal took the above view ignoring or overlooking the fact that the police had charge sheeted the driver of the vehicle insured by the review petitioner. In appeal, we have interfered with the above finding and held that the driver, owner and the review petitioner - insurer were liable to pay the compensation. The said finding entered by us is sought to be reviewed in this petition. 4. As has been noticed already, the police had charge sheeted the driver of the vehicle insured by the review petitioner. No contra evidence was adduced by the driver or owner of the vehicle, leave alone the review petitioner. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to review our judgment on this point. R.P.No.215 OF 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.1343 OF 2005 :: 2 :: 5. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that this court ought not to have adopted the age of the claimant as 38 and applied the multiplier of 16 in the absence of any evidence. But it was noticed by us that in the claim petition the claimant had specifically stated that he was aged 38. He was examined in the case also. There was no contra evidence to show that the age shown by him in the claim petition was not correct. The multiplier to be applied for the victims in the age group of 35-40 is 16. It is therefore that we have applied the said multiplier. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention now raised by the review petitioner. 6. The other contention raised by the review petitioner is that this court ought not to have taken the percentage of disability as 20 in the absence of any evidence. But it was noticed by us that in the certificate the percentage of disability was certified as 22. But the Tribunal had, without assigning any reason, taken disability as 10%. We had considered the extensive nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and it was therefore that we had fixed the percentage of disability as 20. We do not find any reason to interfere with the above conclusion made by us. In short, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the review petitioner in this review petition. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes