IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 900 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.988/2001 Dated 23/01/2006 OF THIS COURT. REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT: THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.K.K.JAYASOORIAN SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY RESPONDENTS: 1. JOLLY, AGED 32 YEARS, WIDOW OF PAULOSE, KURISSERRY HOUSE, AVITTAPPALY, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. GIPSY, D/O. LATE PAULOSE, KURISSERRY HOUSE, AVITTAPPALLY, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, 1ST PETITITONER. 3. R. SATHYAPAL, S/O. RAJAPPAN NAIR, MANAPPATTU HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. SWAMY PRASADAN, SON OF K. AYYAPPAN NAIR, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. MICHAEL, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN, KURISSERRY HOUSE, AVITTAMPPILLY, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. VERONICA AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. MICHAEL KURISSERRY HOUSE, AVITTAMPPILLY, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = R.P. NO. 900 OF 2009 IN M.F.A. 988 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment rendered in M.F.A. 988 of 2001. It is contended that at the time when the matter was disposed of by this Court, the compromise by Respondents 4 and 5 before the Adalath settling the matter for Rs. 10,000/- could not be brought to the notice of this Court. We have gone through the entire records. We find that originally there were four petitioners including respondents 4 and 5 in the claim petition. The matter was settled only as against the claim of the parents namely Respondents 4 and 5 in M.F.A. 988 of 2001. As a matter of fact, while awarding additional compensation by our judgment in the appeal, we have specifically directed that the additional compensation will be payable only to the second petitioner namely, Gipsy, the daughter of the deceased. As such, the compromise entered into between the revision petitioner herein and the parents of the deceased will not affect the claim of the second appellant Gipsy. As such, no ground is made out to review the judgment. Review petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-