IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 890 of 2008(B) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.1211/2004 Dated 28/05/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- RAJU, MEENAM KANI VILA VEEDU, MUKKOLA, KALLAYAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT & RESPONDENTS 2 AND3 /RESPONDETNS 1 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. BRO GILES THEKKEMURY, PRESIDENT, SOCIETY OF THE ERACISION BROTHERS, ST.THOMAS PROVINCE, T.C.3/48, MORTIZ BHAVAN, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BIJU.B.NAIR, S/O.BABU NAIR, VISHWA BHARATH, MANNANTHALA, MANNANTHALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAJESH S/O.MOHANAN, PANAYICHIRAKONAM KEEZHVILA VEEDU, MANNANTHALA, CHENCHERI WARD, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC & BOBBY MATHEW. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 890 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 1211 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. O R D E R This R.P. is preferred against the judgment passed by me on 28th May, 2008 and the revision petitioner is the claimant before the Tribunal. I am not considering the matter technically but since the observation by me in the judgment itself show that I have not heard the claimant, I am inclined to consider what the learned counsel has to argue. 2. Heard the learned counsel. By the order of remand this Court directed the Tribunal to consider who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Even in the claim petition the appellant before this Court was only described as a previous owner and in whose name stood the registration certificate. I have given the reasonings why it should be considered and therefore I do not want to disturb those findings. It is true in paragraph 4 of my judgment I had made an observation that the Tribunal has fixed the R.P. 890 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 1211 OF 2004 -:2:- permanent disability without support of any documents. It may not be taken that the observation of this Court is for the purpose of reducing the disability or reducing the compensation. What can be done is that the petitioner namely the claimant be permitted to produce documentary or oral evidence in support of his disabilities and the Tribunal after hearing all concerned decide whether the claimant is awarded a proper compensation or not and the Tribunal is entitled to give its own finding either enhancing or reducing the compensation. 3. I make it clear that an opportunity be given to all the parties in support of the contentions that are ordered to be looked into by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within three months from today. With these observations this R.P. is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-