IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 555 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.875/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. THRESSIA AGED 100 YEARS, W/O.DECEASED DEFASY KANOOKADAN HOUSE, NALUKETTU.P.O., KONOOR, KORATTY THRISSUR DIST. 2. VALSA FRANSIS AGED 52, W/O. DECEASED FRANCIS...DO... 3. ASHA TERES (MINOR) D/O. DECEASED FRANCIS ..... DO 4. NISHA MARIA (MINOR) D/O. DECEASED FRANCIS .... DO BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SRI.C.RAMU, S/O. CHINNATHAMBI, SRI. GAJALAKSHMI SAGO FACTORY NO.9, VEERAGANUR ROAD, PODUPER.P.O., ATTUR.T.K. PIN-636102 2. SRI. GUNASHEKHARAN, S/O. MARUTHAMUTHU PILLAI, DOOR NO. 139, KAITHAMILLATH NAGAR, GANGAVALLY MAIN ROAD, THAMMANVETTY VILLAGE. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 636, CUDALORE MAIN ROAD, ATTUR, PIN-636102. 4. SMT. SAFIA RAHMAN, W/O ABDUL RAHMAN, MANJALIVALAPPIL HOUSE, M.S.K.MANZIL, ANNAMALAI ROAD, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680307. 5. UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SREEKUMAR BUILDINGS, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680307. R3 - BY ADV.SRI.JACOB MATHEW. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 555 of 2009 in MACA No. 875 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. Order Thomas P. Joseph, J: Appellants in MACA.No.875/2005 have sought review of the common judgment to the extent it related to MACA.No.875/05 arising from the award in O.P (MV).No.2279/96. Their grievance is that when the appeals were heard and taken up for judgment, it was observed from the Bench that '12' will be the multiplier to be taken, instead of 10 adopted by the learned Tribunal. But it so happened that when the appeal was disposed of, multiplier was taken as 10 and accordingly loss of contribution and dependency was assessed. Appellants therefore contend that the multiplier may be taken as 12 and compensation for loss of dependency and contribution fixed accordingly. 2. It is not disputed by counsel for contesting respondents also that there was such an observation from the Bench when the matter was taken up for judgment. One of us (Thomas P. Joseph, J.) was a party to the common judgment and it is recollected that when the matter was taken up for judgment such an observation was made. It is by a mistake that the multiplier adopted by the RP.555/2009. : 2 : learned Tribunal (10) was accepted and the appeal disposed of. There is an error apparent on the face of record. A party should not suffer on account of a mistake committed by the Court. Therefore we are inclined to grant the relief sought for. 3. Accordingly the Review Petition is allowed to the extent that in OP (MV) 2279/96 multiplier of 12 is adopted instead of 10 which brings compensation payable for loss of dependency and contribution to Rs.18,72,000/- (12000 x 13 x 12) as against Rs.15,60,000/- (12000 x 13 x 10). Accordingly the total amount payable to the appellants/petitioners in OP(MV).2279/96 is Rs.19,04,000/-. The common judgment to the extent it concerned OP (MV) 2279/96 and MACA.No.875/05 is reviewed and modified accordingly. The other directions in the common judgment will remain as such. MACA.875/05 is allowed in part accordingly. Clause (v) in the operative portion of the common judgment will be read as “MACA.875/2005 is allowed in part.” A.K. Basheer Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge an.