- (1.) This review petition has been filed against the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 314 of 2000 ,New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Kamlesh Srivastava & another and F.A.F.O. No.398 of 2000 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Kamlesh Srivastava and another, by which the compensation amount of the award was enhanced from Rs.7,14,628/- to 10,00,000/- and Insurance Company was directed to pay it equally to the dependants of the deceased.
(2.) According to the learned counsel of the petitioner, the Appeal No.398 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner for reduction of amount of the compensation, thus, the amount ought to have been reduced but in fact the compensation of the amount was enhanced almost 2-3 times, in spite of the fact that there was no appeal or cross objection for enhancement by the claimants-respondent. Thus, there was a mistake apparent on the face of record in as much as no relief could have been granted to the respondent-claimants in the appeal. It is also alleged that in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation & ors. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the maximum increase in the income of the deceased, in consideration to future prospect cannot exceed 50% of the emoluments that too where the deceased was below 40 years of age. There should be no addition where deceased is about 50 years of age. In the present case, the compensation has been enhanced almost 2-3 times, hence this review petition.
(3.) Placing reliance on the ruling of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus R. Swaminathan and others, 2006 1 TAC 965 , it is argued by Learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-claimants cannot seek a higher relief in an appeal if he had not filed an appeal on his own or had not taken any cross-objection.In the aforesaid ruling it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Division Bench of the High Court wholly erred in increasing the compensation amount beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The reliance is also placed on the ruling of Banarsi versus Ram Phal, 2003 9 SCC 606 which supported the proposition that in an appeal filed by the defendant laying challenge to the grant of a smaller relief, the plaintiff as a respondent cannot seek a higher relief if he had not filed an appeal on his own or had not taken any cross-objection. In the present case, the respondent-claimants neither appealed against the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal, nor filed any cross-objection in the first appeal filed by the Insurance Company, thus the judgment was liable to be reviewed.;