Judgment 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. Sri K. Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the claimants, attacked the review petition on the ground that the review petition does not lie from the judgment in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for short). He claimed that the entire gamut of the Act does not speak about review powers. I however do not wish to go into the question of the review powers of the Court as this review deserves to be disposed of on merits. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. ( 2012 (3) Supreme 197 )] considered the ratio in SarlaVerma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) regarding the future prospects and held: “14. … … … In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. … … …” The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Court thus is empowered to grant additional amounts towards the future prospects. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants also placed reliance upon Ranjana Prakash 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. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants also placed reliance upon Ranjana Prakash 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. 5. I may reproduce the order of the High Court under impugnment regarding the salary: “5. … … … PW-3, who is working as accountant in Nagarjuna Engineering College, Bangalore deposed that the deceased was working as canteen manager of their college and he was drawing gross salary of Rs.4,400/-per month and net salary of Rs.4,058/-per month excluding other incentives Ex.A-6 is the salary certificate issued by General Secretary of Nagarjuna Education Society to the effect that the deceased was working as hostel manager since six years. Since the deceased was working as Hostel Manager, ends of justice would be met if Rs.6,000/-per month is taken as salary of the deceased and per annum it comes to Rs.72,000/-(6000x12=72,000) and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount wards personal and living expenses the amount comes to Rs.48,000/-(72,000/3=24,000-72,000= 48,000). … … …” 6. A reading of the order quoted above shows that the High Court was conscious that the claimants urged that the deceased was earning Rs.4,400/-as gross salary and Rs.4,058/-as net salary through Ex.A-6 Salary Certificate and that the High Court considered it appropriate to determine the salary at Rs.6,000/-. Thus, the order of the High Court in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month appears to be a conscious exercise of its powers by the High Court. In that view of the matter, I am afraid that the order cannot be subjected to review. 7. Thus, the order of the High Court in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month appears to be a conscious exercise of its powers by the High Court. In that view of the matter, I am afraid that the order cannot be subjected to review. 7. I therefore see no merits in this review petition as I consider that the High Court consciously and deliberately arrived at the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month and that the same cannot be questioned in a review. This review petition therefore is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.