AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.—Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to review the order dated 18.4.2011 passed in MFA No. 6218/2010 by this Court.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 18,200/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand two hundred Only) towards medical expenses as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh). It is highly erroneous. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for physiotherapy. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month towards medical attendant viz. nursing, which is highly decimal in nature. The review petitioner seeks to enhance the compensation in respect of medical expenses from Rs. 18,200/- to Rs. 18,00,000/- and also award compensation in respect of physiotherapy at Rs. 300/- per day till life time of the claimant. Compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities as enhanced by this Court at Rs. 2,50,000/- also needs to be revised.
The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:
The review petitioner had filed I.A. under Sections 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal in its order at paragraph No. 8 has mentioned as under:
"8. The petitioner has not examined any attendant or a person who has given physiotherapy to the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner of Rs. 6,48,000/- under the head conveyance, Rs. 21,60,000/- under the head physiotherapy and Rs. 10,00,000/- under the medical expenses and Rs. 75,000/- towards disfigurement is highly exorbitant, because the petitioner herself is the doctor and has intention to join the further dental course. Special Power Attorney is the mother of the petitioner who is also a doctor. Therefore the petitioner had to show the actual expenditure by way of primary evidence. Without doing so, the petitioner filed this I.A. to amend the Judgment and Award. Inspite of the observations, the petitioner has failed to produce least duplicate copy of the medical bills. Therefore, I hold that the compensation awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable and hence I proceed to answer point No. 1 in the Negative."
The Tribunal has dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Review Petitioner had preferred appeal before this Court in M.F.A. No. 6218/2010. In the judgment passed in M.F.A. No. 6218/2010 dated 18.4.2011, at paragraph No. 10, this Court has mentioned as under:
"10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 26,12,600/- as compensation. We notice that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is just and proper and does not warrant interference. But however, we propose to enhance the compensation in respect of pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects and loss of amenities in life. Insofar as pain and suffering is concerned, we notice that having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant - appellant, the compensation under the said head is on the lower side. Hence, we propose to enhance it from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and towards loss of amenities we propose to enhance it from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Insofar as marriage prospects is concerned, we propose to enhance by another Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the enhanced compensation awardable to the claimant under these three heads would be as follows:
Thus, the enhanced compensation would be Rs. 2,50,000/-."
In the final order of this Court, it is indicated as under:
(i) The appeal filed by the claimant--appellant is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation is enhanced by Rs. 2,50,000/-.
(iii) Hence, we award a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to say that the claimant - appellant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on the enhanced compensation.
(iv) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
There is no provision in Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for review. Under review, procedural defects, calculation of amount, mistake in multiplier, accidental error in judgment, omission to mention the date, date on which the interest was awarded can be clarified. This Court cannot re-write the judgment, after it has pronounced the judgment. The review can be entertained on discovery of new matter or evidence, which was not within her knowledge even after exercising due diligence or could not have been produced by her at the time when decree was passed or order is made.
In this background, we have examined the review petition and also the receipts produced by her. These documents were not produced before the Court below.
Party-in-person claims that about Rs. 10,00,000/- is spent towards medical treatment and physiotherapy and Rs. 2,000/- per month is spent towards medical attendant and therefore, compensation towards medical expenses has to be enhanced from Rs. 18,200/- to Rs. 18,00,000/- and towards physiotherapy, compensation at Rs. 300/- per day till lifetime of the claimant has to be awarded. The review petitioner has sought to re-write the judgment and to re-try the case. In this case, appeal was allowed in part. Judgment was pronounced. The judgment does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record, which leads to failure of justice. In the absence of such error, the finality attained to the judgment and order cannot be disturbed. Relief sought by the claimant is to re-try the case because of discovery of certain evidence. Such course is not permissible under the provisions of review. She is also unable to point-out the error apparent on the face of the judgment.
The Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 26,12,600/- with 6% interest p.a. She has also filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Tribunal to amend the judgment and award. This application was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal.
Appeal was preferred and this Court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is just and proper and does not warrant interference. However, this Court enhanced the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects and loss of amenities in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Again, she has filed a review petition seeking enhancement of compensation. As stated earlier, appeal filed by the review petitioner was allowed, judgment was pronounced. Now, this Court cannot re-write the judgment, after it has pronounced the judgment. There is no change of circumstances, additional or different grounds to review the judgment and order. It is not the case of the review petitioner that this Court has not taken into consideration the existing decision of the Apex Court or there are discovery of new matter or evidence which, even after due diligence was not within her knowledge or could not be produced by her before the Tribunal. She has also drawn the amount vide Cheque Nos. 536906 and 536907 dated 25.10.2010 for Rs. 15,67,560/- drawn on Canara Bank, Hanumanthanagara Branch, and Cheque No. 582938 dated 24.08.2011 for Rs. 2,99,333/- issued to Dr. Shobha, W/o. Late. Dr. S. Janardhana Murthy, GPA Holder of the injured. Total amount received by the review petitioner is Rs. 18,66,893/-. 60% of the compensation amount was invested in Fixed Deposit.
This Court has already held that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. However, a nominal enhancement was made from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded towards loss of marriage prospects.
There is no error apparent on the face of record. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce evidence before the Tribunal. Now, she intends to seek to remand the matter in this review proceedings, which is not permissible. In our view, there is no changed circumstance, which calls for enhancement of the compensation already awarded.
In view of the above discussion, we pass the following:
ORDER
This Review Petition is dismissed.