1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 17.09.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1327 of 1998 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 54,100/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the said Tribunal in Motor Accident Review Application No. 12 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded additional amount of Rs. 22,176/- under the head of future loss of income.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 02.12.1986 while the claimant was trying the alight from the S.T. Bus registration no. GRU 8236 it was suddenly driven by the original opponent no. 1 as a result of which the claimant sustained severe injuries. The claimant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award in the main claim petition. Thereafter, the claimant preferred review application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded additional amount of Rs. 22,176/-.
3. Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 54100/- and thereafter awarding additional amount of Rs. 22176/-. She submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the claimant and the multiplier and awarded compensation which is on higher sdie. She further submitted that as far as review application is concerned, there is no error apparent on the face of the award and therefore the review application ought not to have been entertained.
4. Mr. Thakker, learned advocate appearing for the claimants supported the main award and the order in review application and submitted that there is no infirmity in the same as it is passed after taking into consideration the evidence laid down by both the sides. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajender Kumar and others vs. Rambhai and others reported in 2002 ACJ 1822 wherein it is held that the foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of it and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 54100/- as compensation in the main claim petition which is just and proper. However, the decision of the Tribunal in awarding additional amount under the head of future loss of income is erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The decision cited by learned advocate for the respondent shall not be applicable on the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present case there is no error apparent on the face of record which is evident from para 4. No documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal at the relevant time. The said claim was not considered at all in the main petition. The order under challenge in review application did not suffer from any serious illegality which called for correction by exercise of review jurisdiction. The order impugned therefore calls for interference by this Court.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Review Application No. 12 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. The amount of Rs. 22,176/- awarded vide order dated 15.12.2004 in review application shall be refunded to the appellant. The amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. It is clarified that the amount of Rs. 54,100/- along with proportionate interests and costs shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the original claimants.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//