JUDGMENT : Through Video Conferencing 1. Review of judgement dated 1st April 2021, passed by this Court in partly allowing Appeal, being MA No. 28/2019, titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Ghulam Hassan Sheikh and others, is sought for in instant petition on the grounds tailored therein. 2. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioner-Insurance Company, has stated that this Court while passing judgement under review, has not deducted family pension from the compensation. He in this regard has referred to judgement of the Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 ACJ 1441 . His next submission is that claimants are not entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium. He has also averred that percentage of deduction on account of dependency ought to have been half as is applicable to bachelors and that notion behind this is that the bachelor has not to maintain the family and same is the case with a person who has nobody to be maintained and therefore, deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses needs to be reviewed by this Court. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering abovementioned contentions, the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be taken into consideration. 4. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under: “1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order.” 5. An application for review would lie, among others, when an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. Limitations on exercise of power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 6. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. 7. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 8. Nevertheless, given contentions of learned counsel for review petitioner, more particularly with reference to deduction of family pension, it would be apt to mention here that it is no more open to review petitioner-Insurance Company to make a contention that family pension received by family of deceased employee can be deducted from calculating the loss of income. Law in this regard is now settled. The Supreme Court in [Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 627 , Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 2079; and National Insurance Company Ltd v. Mannat Johal (2019) 15 SCC 260 , has said that family pension received by family of deceased employee cannot be deducted from calculating the loss of income and similarly other benefits, extended to dependents of deceased employee, viz. family pension, life insurance, provident fund etc., must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted. 9. family pension, life insurance, provident fund etc., must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted. 9. The law is well settled that the deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to kin of deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts have accrued to dependents or legal heirs of deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Thus, the natural corollary is that the advantage that accrues to the estate of deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of death of deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of dependents only after his death. 10. Insofar as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of Service Jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted. 11. As held by the House of Lords in Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), the insurance amount is the fruit of premium paid in the past, pension is the fruit of services already rendered, and the wrongdoer should not be given benefit of the same by deducting it from the damages assessed. 12. 11. As held by the House of Lords in Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), the insurance amount is the fruit of premium paid in the past, pension is the fruit of services already rendered, and the wrongdoer should not be given benefit of the same by deducting it from the damages assessed. 12. The Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others v. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation and another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 , has held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etcetera, are all pecuniary advantages receivable by heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be termed as pecuniary advantage liable for deduction and that family pension is also earned by an employee for benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by heirs after his death and heirs receive family pension even otherwise than accidental death. The Supreme Court also said that compassionate appointment in the case of death of an employee in harness, could not be stated to be an advantage receivable by heirs on account of one's death and had no correlation with amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with accidental death. 13. The judgement relied upon by learned counsel for review petitioner, given above discourse, do not render any aid and assistance to the averments made by review petitioner in petition on hand. 14. In view of above settled legal position, the judgement dated 1st April 2021 does not call for any review. Instant petition being hopelessly without any merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 15. Next contention is that percentage of deduction on account of loss of dependency ought to have been taken as half as is applicable to bachelors. Such a submission is bizarre, unfounded and baseless. Deceased, Mst. Zeba, aged 52 years, was not a bachelor but a married and had children as well. 16. 15. Next contention is that percentage of deduction on account of loss of dependency ought to have been taken as half as is applicable to bachelors. Such a submission is bizarre, unfounded and baseless. Deceased, Mst. Zeba, aged 52 years, was not a bachelor but a married and had children as well. 16. Another submission is that claimants are not entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium. Again, such a contention is misconceived. There had been a consistent view as regards compensation on account of consortium prior to judgement of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 , which was that consortium was payable only to the wife, but in view of law laid down in the said judgement, the scope of term 'consortium' has been expended and 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium' has been included. It has been held by the Supreme Court that consortium includes company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his/her family. In view of the aforementioned judgement, two other kinds of consortium, i.e., parental and filial came to be recognized as legitimate conventional heads for assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. This position of law has been iterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC Online 410, followed by the judgement passed in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 720. Relevant portion thereof would be advantageous to be reproduced hereunder: “33. A three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC Online 410, had reaffirmed the view of two-Judge Bench in Magma General insurance Company Ltd. Three-Judge Bench from paragraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads. The entire discussion on three conventional heads of three-Judge Bench is as follows:- "53. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that in death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 54. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that would not be an acceptable criterion. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that in death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 54. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be based on a reasonable foundation. It was observed that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The Court was of the view that the amounts to be awarded under these conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years, which will bring consistency in respect of these heads: a) Loss of Estate-Rs. 15,000 to be awarded b) Loss of Consortium 55. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads for awarding compensation in various jurisdictions such as the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. 56. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors., this Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 57. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. 58. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 57. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. 58. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit. 59. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. 61. Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. 62. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). 63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 64. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. 65. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 64. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. 65. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head: c) Funeral Expenses-Rs. 15,000 to be awarded.” ............. 36. The word 'consortium' has been defined in Black's law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black's law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner:- "Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 37. The Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) as well as United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), Three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium.” 17. In view of above it is no more res integra to make any comment qua 'consortium'. The law is now settled that 'consortium', includes company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of deceased, which is a loss to the family of deceased. Last but not least, it cannot be heard saying from review petitioner Insurance Company that claimants have not lost 'company', 'guidance' and 'affection' of their wife/mother, who had been an important part of their family. Thus, review sought for by review petitioner-Insurance Company concerning grant of compensation on account of Loss of Consortium, has no impetus and substance. 18. Taking into account the above discussion, present petition filed by review petitioner-Insurance Company is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Such a frivolous and bogus petitions, deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs, so that precious time of this court is not wasted for their cases to be heard by the Court for seeking justice. 19. 18. Taking into account the above discussion, present petition filed by review petitioner-Insurance Company is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Such a frivolous and bogus petitions, deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs, so that precious time of this court is not wasted for their cases to be heard by the Court for seeking justice. 19. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the officer of the National Insurance Company Limited, namely, Kumail Murtaza, Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Srinagar who has filed this petition and sworn affidavit in support thereof. 20. Costs be deposited with Registrar Judicial of this Court within four weeks. 21. Copy of this order be sent down.