RP No. 55 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the reviewpetition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2007 / 29TH PAUSHA 1928 RP.No. 55 of 2007() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.2009/2005 Dated17/11/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- N. SURENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, NADUVANKANDY HOUSE, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM,NELLUR DESOM P.O. KOKKEYENGAD, PERAVOOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT & RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 & RESPONDENTS 1TO 4: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P. CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. BALAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, NELLUR DESOM, P.O. KOKKEYENGAD, VIA. PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
E.P. BASHEER, KARIYIL HOUSE, ELAMBARA, P.O. MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, MANATH HUSE, KUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, NELLUR DESOM, P.O. KOKKEYENGAD, VIA. PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 55 OF 2007 INMACA 2009 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of January, 2007.
Operative part
O R D E R Krishnan,J. This review petition is preferred against the award passed inMACA 2009/05 and MACA 922/06 of this Court. Two appeals were preferred. One by the claimant and the other by the InsuranceCompany. Both the cases were heard together and this Court by judgment dated 17th November, 2006 reduced the compensation from Rs.7,38,000/- to Rs.6,53,985/-. The main grievance of thereview petitioner is that this Court had not considered his appeal and had only considered the case of the Insurance Company. When two appeals are preferred against the same award, the question to be considered is whether reasonable amount has been granted by the Tribunal and it requires enhancement or reductionas the case may be. It is in that perspective this Court has considered the entire matter and came to a conclusion that the compensation is to be reduced. There is no merit in saying that the appeal of the review petitioner was not considered. Further R.P. NO. 55 OF 2007 INMACA 2009 OF 2005-:Page numbers:-there is no error apparent on the face of the records. The review petitioner has not come across any new points which was not available at the stage of disposal. There is no ground under Order47 Rule 1 C.P.C. to review the judgment. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.ul/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the reviewpetition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — r. 1.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Nov 2006. The bench was M N KRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.