Dismissed

C.S.Devasiya v. Joseph.P.P

Kerala HC13 Dec 2021RP/787/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench dismissed a review petition filed against an order awarding compensation for bodily injury, holding that the issues regarding multiplier and future prospects were already adjudicated in the appeal and re-examination was not within the scope of a review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as it amounts to re-hearing of the appeal; no apparent error found in the judgment.

C.S.Devasiya Vs Joseph.P.P — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 787 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2021 IN MACA NO.660/2015 OF HIGH

¶7

COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶9

C.S.DEVASIYA, S/O SOURU, CHENGALAN HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR.P.O, CHERANALLOOR KARA, ANGAMALY.

¶10

BY ADV T.K.KOSHY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶12

1 JOSEPH.P.P PALLICKAL HOUSE, NEAR JBS, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683572.

¶13

2 JULIA JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, PALLICKAL HOUSE, NEAR JBS,ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683572.

¶14

3 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, 3RD FLOOR, FINANCE TOWER, NEW COCHIN STOCK EXCHANGE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682017.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R.P.No.787 of 2021 in MACA No.660/2015 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Review Petition is submitted by the appellant in the above appeal against the judgment

¶19

dated 17.9.2021 in M.A.C.A.No. 660 of 2015. It was pointed out that, the judgment rendered by this Court contains an apparent error on the face of record pertaining to the multiplier taken and also with regard to the addition made towards future prospects. According to the learned counsel, as per the Election identity card and the Pan card of the appellant, his date of birth was 6.3.1959 and the incident in this case occurred on 1.8.2009. By

¶20

relying upon the same, it was contended that, as on the date of the incident he just completed the age 50 but not yet attained the age of 51 years. For the

¶21

purpose of the multiplier and the deduction to be made towards future prospects, he should have been treated as a person coming within the age group of

¶22

R.P.No.787 of 2021 in MACA No.660/2015 3

¶23

46-50 and 40-50 respectively, contends the learned

¶24

counsel. It was also contended that, he was a

¶25

regular employee in the establishment of Food Corporation of India as headload worker and

¶26

therefore, proper addition towards future prospects should have been 50% as against the 10% fixed by this Court.

¶27

All the above contentions were specifically raised before this Court during the course of

¶28

hearing of appeal. The said contentions were

¶29

specifically dealt with and found that, the

¶30

multiplier applicable to him is '11'. Similarly, the contention regarding the future prospects was also specifically considered by this Court and fixed the

¶31

same as 10% by taking into account the fact that

¶32

though he was a regular employee, he was not being

¶33

paid a fixed monthly salary. The monthly income of the Review Petitioner varied from month to month,

¶34

depending upon the work he carries on. It was in the

¶35

R.P.No.787 of 2021 in MACA No.660/2015 4

¶36

said circumstances, this Court fixed future prospects at 10%.

¶37

The contentions put forward by the Review Petitioner is already considered in the appeal and raising the contention in this review petition once again, is beyond the scope of the petition itself. It amounts to re-hearing of the appeal. I do not find any apparent error on the judgment passed on 17.9.2021 and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶38

The Review Petitioner has produced the original Election Identity card as well as Pan Card along with the Review Petition as Annexures P1 and P2. The originals of the said documents can be released to the Review Petitioner, after retaining photo copies thereof in the file.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶41

pkk

¶42

R.P.No.787 of 2021 in MACA No.660/2015 5

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

ANNEXURE RP1: ELECTOR PHOTO IDENTITY CARD BEARING NO.URJ0475319 DATED 22.10.2015 ISSUED BY ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA. ANNEXURE RP2: PAN CARD BEARING NO.BSNPD8188A ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

C.S.Devasiya v. Joseph.P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Devasiya v. Joseph.P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Arjunan Vs State of Kerala

Sreegokulam Chit & Finance Co.(P) Ltd. Vs Gopalakrishnan M.R

Prasanth Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Smitha (Smitha Karthikapally) Vs State of Kerala