Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -appellants have laid this petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for reviewing judgment rendered by this Court on 6th September 2012 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1102 of 2006.
(2.) THE bare necessary facts for examining this review petition are that feeling dismayed with the judgment and award dated 27th of September 2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, the petitioner -appellants preferred appeal before this Court for seeking enhancement of the compensation quantified by the learned Tribunal. This Court, after hearing the rival submissions, partly allowed the appeal by redetermining the compensation for loss of dependency by applying multiplier of 15 and finally enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000. The Court has also ordered payment of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @9% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the review petition.
(3.) PRECISELY , the grounds set out in the review petition are in the nature of re -hearing of the appeal and deciding it afresh on merits. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has urged that while rendering the judgment dated 6th of September 2012, this Court has not examined future prospects of the deceased for quantifying just and reasonable compensation, and therefore, this error, which has crept in the judgment under review, is an error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has placed reliance on following judgments: 1) U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Lallu Ram & Anr. [MACD 2014(1) (All.) 378] 2) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. [MACD 2014(2) (Delhi) 871] 3) Sona & Ors. Vs. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. [MACD 2014(1) (Raj.) 29] 4) Malthesh Gudda Pooja Vs. State of Karnataka [ : 2011 (7) Supreme 468] 5) Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs. [2009 CDR 1014 (SC)].;