High Court Kerala High Court

T.Geena vs New India Assurance Company Ltd on 22 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.Geena vs New India Assurance Company Ltd on 22 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 29 of 2010()


1. T.GEENA, MANKULATHU VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GEENA DIVYA(MINOR),
3. K.AMBUJAKSHI, VENKETESWARA NILAYAM,

                        Vs



1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :22/10/2010

 O R D E R
             J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
                 ------------------------------------------
                        R.P.No. 29 of 2010 in
                        M.A.C.A.No.638 of 2004
                 ------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010

                               ORDER

Ravindran, J.

This is an application seeking review of the judgment

delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 12th June, 2008 in

M.A.C.A.No.638 of 2004. The appeal filed by the legal heirs of the

victim of a motor accident was allowed in part and compensation

was enhanced by a further sum of Rupees ten thousand. The

Division Bench declined to enhance the compensation on other

grounds.

2. In this review petition the petitioners seek

enhancement of the compensation. It is contended that the fixation

of the monthly income at Rupees three thousand is on the lower side

and that having regard to Ext.A9 certificate and the periodical

increases in salary, this Court ought to have fixed a higher monthly

R.P.No.29 of 2010

– 2 –

income. What the review petitioners/appellants seek in this

review petition is virtually a rehearing of the appeal which, it is

well settled, is not permissible in a review petition. We,

therefore, find no grounds to entertain the review petition. The

review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge

vns