SURINDRA KAUR Vs. M. A. C. T. , DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Application No.1116 of 2019 has been filed under Chapter 5 Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, as applicable in this High Court. The review applicant is seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 20.08.2019 passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No.1241 of 2001 (Old No.879 of 1994), allowing the appeal of the review appellants/applicants. Chapter 5 Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is extracted hereunder:-

(2.) The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20.08.2019, on the ground that after the decision of this Court, the review applicants have discovered a judicial precedent set up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Chameli Devi and others vs. Jivrail Mian and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.7004 of 2019 decided on 04.09.2019 vide its judgment and order dated 04.09.2019.

(3.) It is contended that in the interest of justice and fair play, the judgment and order dated 20.08.2019 be recalled and reviewed. Further reliance has been placed on the statement of PW2-Mahender Singh, who had deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/-p.m. from his truck and transport business. Besides this, he was also running the business of dairy farming and agriculture and the total monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/-p.m., but the Court has fixed a notional income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is also stated that this Court has wrongly applied the notional income of the deceased. It is further stated that this Court should have considered the evidence of PW2-Mahender Singh on the tuch stone of preponderance of possibility as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi and others vs. Jivrail Mian and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.7004 of 2019 decided on 04.09.2019 , the relevant paragraph of the judgment (supra) is extracted hereunder:- "This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- per month but since no positive proof of income was led, the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was taken as notional income. This obviously is not a correct position of law. The High Court accepted the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. According to us, the income assessed by the High Court is on the lower side. The accident happened on 02.01.2001. The Tribunal and the High Court held that no proof of income has been produced to show that the deceased was alleged to be a carpenter. We fail to understand what proof a carpenter can lead except to lead oral evidence."