IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review Petition No. 8 of 2008. Date of decision: 27.3.2008. Himachal Road Transport Corporation ….. Petitioner. Vs. Joginder Singh & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). CMP(M) No. 127 of 2008. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition, which is barred by 162 days as per the report of the Registry. In the application, it has been submitted by the applicant that certified copy of the judgement dated 21.8.2007 was applied on 22.8.2007, which was prepared on 29.8.2007 and was delivered on 19.9.2007, as no date was given by the Copying Agency for delivery of the copy. After the receipt of the copy of judgement, the file was routed through different channels and finally competent authority decided to file the review petition. The delay in filing the review petition is neither intentional nor willful. The application is supported by an affidavit dated 19.2.2008 of Sh. Ranjit Singh, Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Though the reasons stated in the application are not clear, but for the reasons stated in the application Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… which is supported by an affidavit and the ultimate order which this court is passing in the main review petition, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned and the application is disposed of. Civil Review No.8 of 2008. 2. This review petition has been filed to review the judgement dated 21.8.2007 passed by this Court in FAO No. 293 of 2000. It has been submitted that this court has applied second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- was determined. It has also been submitted that from amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted as per second schedule of the Act. 3. In judgement, dated 21.8.2007 in paragraph 19, this Court has relied Manju Devi and another versus Musafir Paswan and another [2005 ACJ 99], where Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking income and multiplier on the basis of second schedule of the Act awarded Rs.2,25,000/- and no deduction was made. In the case in hand also, the deceased was 18 years of age and after applying multiplier of 16, compensation has been assessed at Rs.2,40,000/-. It is not the case of the petitioner that income of deceased and multiplier applied are wrong nor it is the case of the petitioner that Manju Devi’s case (supra) has not been properly applied in the present case. 4. No error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out. Hence, review petition is dismissed. March 27, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.