IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 R.P.No. 772 of 2009(C) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.1515/2008 Dated 05/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. KUNHAMI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.LATE THAZHE ELLATH SOOPY, RESIDING AT KAVILUMPARA AMSOM DESOM KAVILUMPARA POST, BADAGARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE. 2. KUNHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.E.SOOPY, THAZHE ELLATH HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA POST, BADAGARA. 3. SMT. PATHUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.E.SOOPY, THANIYULLATHIL, KUNNUMMAL, MOKERI. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SHARINDER SINGH, C/O.TRUCK UNION, PATRON MANDI, PUNJAB. 2. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTIALA,PUNJAB. 3. SMT. HALEENA, W/O.AHMAD, EDECHERIKANDY, VELEM POST, KUTTIYADI VIA, VADAKARA. ADV.SRI. A.R.GEORGE, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No.772 of 2009 in M.A.C.A.No.1515 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the review petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company. Review is filed for the reason that this Court disposed of the appeal even before serving notice on respondent through publication. However we find from the judgment that merit of the claim was considered before waiting for service of notice because of peculiar nature of this case. Accident was in 1982 and the same happened in a cantonment area under the control of the defence force. Claim is also for the death of a serving defence personnel. Application claiming compensation was filed 17 years after the accident. If we remand the case now for consideration on merits which is the relief sought for in the appeal the matter has already become 27 years old. The main reliance by the review petitioner is on a photocopy of insurance policy pertaining to vehicle involved in the accident and Standing Counsel for the insurance company pointed out that the policy itself contains correction and it is not even an attested copy. Further he pointed out that after 27 R.P.772/09-C 2 years the insurance company will not be able to trace the records pertaining to insurance, if any, to defend the case. His further contention is that even if the vehicle was covered by a valid policy since the accident occurred in a cantonment area exclusively under the control of the defence, insurance company may not be liable at all. Even though counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that there is no limitation for filing claim petition, we have considered the same in the judgment and we find no ground to deviate from our findings in the judgment. No grounds are made out to review the judgment. consequently the review petition is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE okb