← Library
High Court of KeralaRP/339/2015dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Bharatha Lakshmi

2015-04-09Honourable Smt. Justice P.V.Asha,Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/19TH CHAITHRA, 1937 RP.No. 339 of 2015 () IN MACA.1503/2012 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 1503/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/3rd RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED LTD.

RAVIPURAM BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR VALLAMATTAM ESTATE M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 015 REP. BY IS MANAGER BY ADVS.SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS ---------------------------- 1.

BHARATHA LAKSHMI W/O LATE MAHARATNAM, MADAKUZHI VEETIL NEAR KOCHUPALLY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005 2.

GIRIJA KUMARI D/O LATE MAHARATNAM, MADAKUZHI VEETTIL NEAR KOCHUPALLY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005 3.

VENKITESH S/O LATE MAHARATHNAM, MADAKUZHI VEETIL NEAR KOCHUPALLY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005 BY SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.339 OF 2015 IN M.A.C.A.No.1503 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April, 2015

ORDER

Ramachandran Nair, J.

This review petition is filed by the Insurance Company by pointing out that there is an error in the multiplier adopted. According to the averments in the review petition, the deceased was aged 42 and therefore the multiplier taken as 15 is not correct. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Ext.A10 is the salary certificate of the deceased where the date of birth is shown as 25.03.1964 and the accident was on 18.03.2004. In that view of the matter, we have correctly taken the age as 40 and the multiplier is also proper. Therefore, there is no ground to review the judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE sv.

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE