NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.RAJAHMUNDRY Vs. M.NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.2956 of 2005 laid the present review petition seeking to review the order of the Court passed on 12-11-2010. The order was passed by Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed. As his Lordship had since laid down the office, the review came up before me.

(2.) SMT . M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioner-insurer, submitted that the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month while Ex.A-6 Salary Certificate discloses the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.4,400/- and the net salary of the deceased at Rs.4,058/- per month and that the learned Judge by oversight determined the salary at Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the review petitioner seeks to review this part of the judgment treating the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,400/- per month or Rs.4,058/- per month and to work out the amount of compensation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the claimants also placed reliance upon RanjanaPrakash v. D.M., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2011 ACJ 2418). In that case, the High Court did not consider the future prospects of the income of the deceased on the ground that the claimants did not challenge the award on that count. The Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that the High Court is entitled to pass orders which ought to have been passed by the trial Court in order to render complete justice between the parties even if the claimants had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. On the basis of these decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the judgment of the High Court cannot be assailed regarding the income of the deceased.