IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the correct multiplier and the calculation of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, as well as the grounds for review as stipulated by the statute.

JUDGMENT :

Both these two applications for review have been filed by the rival parties in the MAC App. No. 128/2015. While Review Pet. No. 51/2015 is filed by two applicants who were the claimants before the MACT, Dibrugarh, Review Pet. No.7/2016 has been filed by the Insurance Company both qua the judgment and order dated 04.03.2015 passed by this Court in the aforesaid appeal. Accordingly, this Court proposes to dispose of both the petitions by this common order.

2. Before going to the issues which have been raised in the two petitions, it would be convenient if a brief background on the factual aspect is given.

3. The claimants had instituted the claim petition before the MACT, Dibrugarh being MAC Case No. 82/2006 on the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The learned Tribunal vide the award dated 15.03.2012 had granted an amount of Rs. 7,24,252/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two) only as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum and further interest in case of delay.

4. The aforesaid award dated 15.03.2012 was the subject matter of challenge in MAC App No. 128/2012. This Court vide the judgment and order dated 04.03.2015 had modified the award and the amount concerned was modified to Rs.6,98,720/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) only along with interest @ 12% per annum after expiry of one month by which time the amount was directed to be released. The breakup of the amount in question was in the following manner:-

5. It is this judgment in respect of which the present applications for review has been made.

6. I have heard Shri G. Jalan, learned counsel for the claimants and Shri S. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company which are the petitioners in these two petitions and also the corresponding respondents.

7. Shri Jalan, the learned counsel has submitted that the multiplier has been wrongly applied by taking into consideration the age of the claimants. It is submitted that the relevant age is that of the victim and in the instant case, the victim of the accident was the son of the claimants who died in the said accident and was aged 24 years and accordingly the correct multiplier was 18 and not 14 as was held by this Court. In this connection, he has also relied upon the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein the principles for determining compensation have been laid down, the relevant paragraph of which is extracted herein below:-

“59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.”

8. So far as the review sought for by the Insurance Company is concerned, Shri Dutta, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that while making the calculation, the income of the deceased has been taken to be Rs.6,830/-. However, the salary of the deceased was Rs.6030/- which was inclusive of the GPF amount of Rs.835/. He accordingly submits that this Court had made a wrong assumption regarding the aforesaid factor by which the GPF amount of Rs.835/- was taken into account twice.

9. The exercise of the powers of review are well established. In a recent judgment, namely, S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the earlier principles laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 wherein the principles laid down are extracted herein below:

“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of