Compensation in motor accident claims must accurately reflect lost earnings and dependencies, allowing modifications based on newly presented evidence.

COMMON ORDER:

Introductory:

1. Claimants in O.P.No.934 of 2003 filed appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.4049 of 2014 questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore (for short “the learned MACT”) under the Judgment dated 03.04.2006.

2. Claim made for Rs.15,00,000/- was partly allowed by the learned MACT and awarding a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- in all with interest at 7.5% per annum.

3. Claimants are wife, daughters and mother of one Jadapalli Muni Ramayya (for short “the deceased”) who was working as the driver working in Irrigation Department.

4. After considering the rival contentions discarding Ex.A6 Salary Certificate relied for want of examining its author, the learned MACT adopted notional income at Rs.1,500/- per month and after deduction taken Rs.1,000/- per month as contribution and accepted Rs.12,000/- as multiplicand and applied the multiplier „15‟. Awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,10,000/-.

5. In the appeal, this Court under the Judgment dated 27.07.2017, observed that the notional income of Rs.1,500/- per month was taken by the learned MACT and that the same require no interference. However, the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.2,10,000/- to Rs.2,30,200/-.

Scope of present appeal and applications:

6(i). I.A.No.2 of 2017 is filed by the claimants with a prayer for review of the judgment made in M.A.C.M.A.No.4049 of 2014 by this Court under orders dated 27.07.2017

(ii). I.A.No.5 of 2017 in I.A.No.2 of 2017 is filed by the claimants with a prayer for permitting the claimants to enhance the claim made from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.26,53,560/- in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 r/w. 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice.

(iii). I.A.No.6 of 2017 in I.A.No.2 of 2017 is filed by the claimants with a prayer for considering the additional evidence in respect of pay particulars etc. of the deceased.

Grounds and Arguments, Analysis and Findings:

7. I.A.No.2 of 2017 is filed on the grounds:

(i) As per Ex.A6 Salary certificate, the deceased was a Government Jeep driver and his employment is not denied. Age of deceased was ‟45‟ years. He was hale and healthy, earning Rs.12,617/- as gross salary and Rs.10,569/- as net salary. Eight years, six months and 23 days of service were remaining as on the date of accident. For the age group of 40-50 years, 30% future prospects are to be added as per the observations of the Supreme Court.

(ii). There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed, as per the settled law.

(iii). There is an error apparent on the face of record in not properly calculating the income.

(iv). If the income is properly taken and calculation is properly made, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is as follows:

(v). Settled law was not properly considered by this Court. Therefore, the judgment dated 17.07.2017 in M.A.C.M.A.No.4049 of 2014 by this Court requires review.

8(i). Arguments are submitted in the same lines, whereas Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that there are no grounds to interfere for exercising the power of review.

(ii). The jurisdiction of review is very limited and exercising such review in the present case would amount to sitting in appeal over its own judgment by the same Court and the review shall not be a rehearing of the appeal over again on merits.

9. The points that arise for consideration in this application / petition are:

1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to consider the additional evidence in respect of pay particulars of the deceased as prayed in I.A.No.6 of 2017 in I.A.No.2 of 2017?

2) Whether ther