Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 114 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Scope
Power of review is not an appellate power. Review is permissible only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. Re-appreciation of evidence or rehearing of the matter on merits is impermissible under review jurisdiction.
(Paras 14, 15, 16)
Review — Error apparent on face of record — Overlooking material evidence
Where material evidence available on record is overlooked by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court while deciding the appeal, such omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
(Paras 16–22)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Review — Permissibility
In motor accident claims, where important documentary and oral evidence regarding employment and income of the deceased was already on record but was ignored, the High Court is justified in reviewing and modifying its earlier judgment instead of remanding the matter, particularly when the litigation is pending for more than two decades.
(Paras 21–22)
Additional evidence — Order 41 Rule 27 CPC — Review stage — Maintainability
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC can be considered only when the appeal is pending. After disposal of the appeal, additional evidence cannot be introduced by linking it with a review application, as the same amounts to putting the cart before the horse.
(Paras 10–11)
Motor accident compensation — Enhancement of claim — Stage of proceedings
Enhancement of claim amount is permissible while the matter is pending. After disposal of the appeal, entertaining an application for enhancement in review proceedings is impermissible and amounts to lack of due diligence.
(Paras 12–13)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Just compensation — Claim exceeding amount claimed
There is no legal bar to awarding compensation in excess of the amount claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled to just compensation. The duty of the Court is to determine compensation which appears to be just under Section 168 of the Act.
(Paras 12, 24)
Income of deceased — Salary certificate — Appreciation of evidence
Where the widow of the deceased deposed regarding employment and income of the deceased and the salary certificate was marked without dispute, absence of further cross-examination on employment and earnings renders the evidence reliable. Overlooking such evidence constitutes manifest error.
(Paras 18–21)
Inquest report — Evidentiary value
Statements recorded in the inquest report regarding occupation and nature of duty of the deceased, entered in due discharge of official functions, constitute important material evidence and cannot be ignored while assessing income.
(Para 21)
Future prospects — Addition — Government employment
For a deceased aged between 40–50 years in permanent employment, 30% addition towards future prospects is mandatory as per the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi.
(Paras 23–25)
Multiplier — Selection — Sarla Verma principles
Multiplier has to be applied strictly in accordance with the age of the deceased as prescribed in Sarla Verma v. DTC. For the age group of 41–45 years, the appropriate multiplier is 14.
(Paras 23, 25)
Consortium — Entitlement — Wife and children
Compensation under the head of loss of consortium is payable not only to the spouse but also to children under the head of parental consortium, in terms of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram.
(Para 26)
Motor accident compensation — Long pendency — Interest
Considering the long lapse of time in adjudication, interest can be reasonably reduced while enhancing compensation in review proceedings.
(Paras 27–28)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Overlooking material evidence already on record constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and justifies exercise of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
-
In motor accident claims, the obligation of the Court is to award just compensation, even exceeding the claim amount, when supported by evidence.
-
Where litigation has remained pending for decades, review and modification based on existing material is preferable to remand or reopening of evidence.
