IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 436 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.1803/2008 Dated 24/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. AYISHA.M, WIFE OF SULAIMAN, MUNDARAYIL HOUSE, PULINKAVU, CHERUKARA POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. SHYJI, DAUGHTER OF SULAIMAN, MUNDARAYIL HOUSE, PULINKAVU, CHERUKARA POST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MGT BUILDING, KALPETA NORTH, WYNADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. 2. UMMER, PADAKKADU HOUSE, KAIPPANCHERY ROAD, SULTHAN'S BATHERY, WAYANADU. 3. SULAIMAN, MUNDARAYIL HOUSE, CHEETHAT POST, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.K.M. SHERIFF THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, ALONG WITH RP 451 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No.436/2009 in MACA 1803/2006 & R.P. No. 451/2009 in MACA 1915/2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petitioners are the mother and sibling of the two children died in a motor accident. The driver of the jeep was the father of the children who got killed in the accident. Even though the Insurance Company prayed for proportionate disallowance of compensation payable to the father whose negligence caused the accident, the MACT did not accept it. However, in appeals by the Insurance Company, this Court directed disallowance of one-sixth of the compensation granted in both the cases against which these Review Petitions are filed. Counsel for the Review Petitioners relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in CHERIYAKUTTY MAMMI V. UMMERKUTTY, (1995) 2 K.L.T. 555 and contended that the impugned judgment against which these Review Petitions are filed is contrary to the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the above referred decision. We 2 notice that the earlier judgment of the Division Bench is not cited or considered by the Division Bench in the judgment under review. Review Petitions are accordingly allowed recalling the judgment with direction to the Registry to post MACAs before the regular Bench for hearing. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3