IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 1381 OF 2024 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN MACA NO.56 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

SULFIKHAR ALI AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, KUNCHIRWTHAR HOUSE, KARUVANNORTHARA, POST,KUDUVAYUR., PIN - 678501 BY ADV RINU. S. ASWAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SUBRAMANIAN.M.

AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O MANIKYAMUTHAN, UPPAATH HOUSE, AMBALAPARAMBU, POST KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678012

2 AYYAPPAN AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O VASU, PITTUPEEDIKA, POST KODUAYUR, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678501

3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PLI BRANC, SOORYA COMPLEX, MISSION HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, T.B ROAD, PALLAKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678014 SRI. P.K MANOJKUMAR- SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2025:KER:30640 EASWARAN S., J .....................................

RP No.1381 of 2024 in MACA No.56 of 2021 ...................................…

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2025

ORDER

The review petition is preferred by the claimant – appellant in the appeal, pointing out that an inadvertent error has occurred while pronouncing the judgment in the above appeal.

2. Heard, Sri.Rinu S. Aswan – learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar – learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

3. The review petitioner had preferred the appeal only on the question as to whether he is entitled for any compensation under the head permanent disability. While rendering the judgment, this Court found that the Tribunal could not have discarded Ext.A18 Disability Certificate issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon of the Government Medical College, Thrissur and therefore, assessed the permanent disability as 20% and granted a total compensation of Rs.4,78,992/- under the head

2025:KER:30640 permanent disability. While granting the aforesaid compensation, this Court noticed the fact that since an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been granted under the head loss of amenities on account of the disability, the aforesaid amount has to be deducted. It is as against the said findings, the present review petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company basically pointed out that there is no error apparent on face of the record inasmuch as this Court had only deducted the amount which is already granted by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities on account of the disability suffered by the appellant. It is thus pointed out that the remedy of the appellant lies elsewhere and not by a review petition.

5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioner. 6. It may be true that this Court had granted compensation under the head permanent disability. However, as a matter of fact, if the amount granted by the Tribunal is

2025:KER:30640 deducted from out of the compensation that was granted by this Court under the head permanent disability, then the same would lead to deprivation of the compensation granted under the head loss of amenities. The said exercise could not have been undertaken by this Court in an appeal preferred by the claimant. The filing of the appeal could not operate as detriment to the interest of the appellant. In such circumstances, this Court is satisfied that there is an error apparent on the face of the record which calls for the modification of the judgment of this Court.

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The paragraph

14 of the judgment is corrected as follows:

“Since this Court is granting an amount of Rs.4,78,992/- under the head permanent disability, the amount granted as Rs.1 lakh has to be deducted out of the said account” will stand corrected and read as “The amount of Rs.4,78,992/- granted under the head perm