Abdul Hameed @ Hameed vs The New India Insurance Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/7TH CHAITHRA, 1939 RP.No. 1141 of 2016 () IN MACA.2892/2016 -----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 2892/2016 DATED 7.10.2016 ## REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- ABDUL HAMEED @ HAMEED AGED 30, S/PO. ASSAINKUTTY CHELATTU (H), ALIKKAL.P.O, UGRAPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ## BY ADV. SRI.K.M.MOHAMED ABDURAHIMAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. K.MOHAMMED S/O.ABDULLA MUSLIAR, KOLANGARAKANDI HOUSE, P.O.UGRAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673639(DRIVER) ## 2. JAFAR SADIK S/O.ABDULLA MASTER, 1/296, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, P.O.AREACODE, MALAPPURAM-673639(OWNER) 3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI (INSURER). ## R3 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.1141/2016 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-I:TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL CLAIM (PETITION) IN O.P.(MV). NO.697/2011 IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, MANJERI. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **==========================** ## **R.P. No.1141 OF 2016 in** ## **M.A.C.A.No.2892 OF 2016** **==========================** Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2017 ## **ORDER** _Ravikumar, J._ The petitioner seeks for review of the judgment dated 7.10.2016 passed by this Court in M.A.C.A.No.2892 of 2016. The said appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV).No.697 of 2011. 2.We have gone through the grounds raised by the petitioner in the review petition. The contention of the petitioner taken up in ground (A) is to the effect that the original claim was for `3,03,650/- and it was limited for the purpose of court fee to **R.P.1141/2016 in MACA.2892/2016** 2 `1,50,000/-. At the same time, the certified copy of the award in O.P.(MV).697/2011would make it clear that the claim was limited to `1,00,000/- and not `1,50,000/-. There is nothing on record which would reveal that the Tribunal has wrongly noted that the claim was limited by the petitioner to `1,00,000/-. If any mistake crept in that regard, the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal for getting it corrected. At any rate, the impugned judgment and award would reveal that the petitioner had limited his claim to `1,00,000/-. It is taking note of the facts revealed from the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner had limited his claim to `1,00,000/- and that the Tribunal awarded `1,19,500/- as compensation that this Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner/appellant could not be said to be a 'person aggrieved' for the purpose of section 173, M.V Act. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the question relating the claim made in the claim petition is not at all a matter to be looked into at the time of considering the appeal and according to the learned counsel for the **R.P.1141/2016 in MACA.2892/2016** 3 petitioner, this Court is empowered to grant compensation over and above the claim. To support the said contention, the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)].** In fact, the said decision was also taken into consideration by this Court while passing the impugned judgment and according to us, the said contention is one made due to misconception of the decision in **Rajesh** 's case (supra). As per the said judgment, we have already taken the view that the fact that the claimant restricted his claim to a particular amount would not disempower the Tribunal for granting compensation in excess of the amount claimed. In fact, in the case on hand, though the petitioner had limited his claim to `1,00,000/-, evidently, the Tribunal had granted more than that, i.e., `1,19,500/-. What we have held is that while considering the question whether a claimant would fall within the expression 'any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal,' on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation for the purpose of section 173 M.V Act, a claimant who is a grantee of an award in **R.P.1141/2016 in MACA.2892/2016** 4 excess of the amount claimed cannot be said to be 'person aggrieved' by an award of the Claims Tribunal'. In such circumstances, evidently, the amount to which the claim is limited and for which the court fee was paid, alone can be taken into consideration for the aforesaid purpose. In **Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. The Govt. of Andra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1372),** it was held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent errors. In **Dr.Mohd. Yasin v. University of Kashmir [AIR 1974 SC 2341],** it was held that review would be maintainable only if an error or a mistake on the face of the judgment is made out, or that it should be shown that new pleas are based on any matter, which could not, despite due diligence be discovered or produced earlier at the appropriate stage. In **M/s.Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [AIR 1980 SC 674]** , it was held that if the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view, having regard to what the record states; it is difficult to hold that there is error apparent on the **R.P.1141/2016 in MACA.2892/2016** 5 face of the record. A scanning of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the review petition in the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Apex Court on the scope of review jurisdiction, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has failed to bring out a case warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this review petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **R.P.1141/2016 in MACA.2892/2016** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **R.P.1141/2016 in MACA.2892/2016** 7 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**