IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2007 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1929 RP.No. 1039 OF 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.1103/2000 DATED 13/02/2006 OPMV.1636/1993 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 TO 5 : 1. SMT.GIRIJA,W/O.LATE M.K.VASAVAN, ONTHIKKADU,MARAPPATTU HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA. 2. M.V.DEEPA, D/O.LATE M.K.VASAVAN,ONTHIKKADU, MARAPPATTU HOUSE,PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA. 3. M.V.SHEEBA, D/O.LATE M.K.VASAVAN, ONTHIKKADU,MARAPPPATTU HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU,THRIPUNITHURARA. 4. SRI.M.V.NISHA, D/O. LATE M.K.VASAVAN, ONTHIKKADU,MARAPPATTU HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA 5. M.V.RANJITH (MINOR) AGED 16 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.K.VASAVAN, ONTHIKKKADU,MARAPPATTU HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY R.P. 1039/2006 : 2 : RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 ------------------------------ 1. S.KANAKAN,, S/O. SAHADEVAN, BHARALAYAM,CHIRAKAKARA,KALLUVATHUKKAL,KOLLAM. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = = R.P. 1039/2006 IN M.F.A. 1103/2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2007. O R D E R Raman, J. Review petitioners are appellants 1 to 5 in M.F.A. 1103/2000 of this Court. They seek review of the judgment dated 13.2.2006 in the above said appeal. The appeal arises out of an award in O.P. (MV) 1636/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the deceased had contributed 60% to the accident and awarded 40% of the amount towards compensation to the legal representatives. Specifically this was challenged in the appeal. We had considered the rival submissions and after evaluating the evidence on record, we found that the apportionment of negligence at 60:40 is correct and there is no error committed by the Tribunal in this regard. It is now contended in the review petition that in respect of the same accident, in the case of another claimant, the Tribunal had apportioned the negligence as 50:50 as per its award dated 30.9.2003, which could not be brought to the notice of this Court when the M.F.A. came up for RP 1039/06 IN M.F.A. 1103/00 :2: consideration. 2. We have heard both sides. We had considered the question regarding apportionment of negligence as fixed by the court below at 60:40 and also referred to the evidence on record and it is thereafter that we confirmed fixation of percentage of negligence as 60:40. The mere fact that in another case the Tribunal has apportioned the negligence at 50:50 is no be a ground for review of the judgment rendered by this Court. We find no reason to review the judgment. Review Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) knc/-