IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 R.P.No. 577 of 2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA 91/2005 .................... PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT/1 st OPPOSITE PARTY K.H.HABEEB MOHAMMED,S/O.HYDROSE,161, THIRUCHENGODE ,NAMAKKAL,TAMILNADU STATE, NOW RESIDING AT KARUKAPPADATH HOUSE, RAMAVARMA PURAM-P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENTS / APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 / 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, VETTUKATTIL BUILDING,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-16. 2. OMANA,W/O.SUGATHAN @ SUDHAN, PALLIMAKKAL HOUSE,KOZHUKKULLY POST, MOORKKANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 752. 3. VINITHA,D/O.SUGATHAN, PALLIMAKKAL HOUSE,KOZHUKKULLY POST, MOORKKANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 752. 4. SUKESH,S/O.SUGATHAN, PALLIMAKKAL HOUSE,KOZHUKKULLY POST, MOORKKANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 752. ADV. SMT.D.GEETHA FOR R1 SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN FOR R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 & R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011 ALONG WITH RP NO.637/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.577 OF 2010 in M.F.A.No.91 OF 2005 & 637 OF 2010 in M.F.A.No.111 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February 2011 ORDER Basheer, J. The common petitioner in these two review petitions seek review of the judgment in MFA 91/05 and 111/05 respectively. 2. The primary grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he had been denied an opportunity to contest the case both before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and before the Division Bench of this court due to reasons beyond his control. We do not propose to refer to the circumstances which according to the petitioner came in his way in contesting the case. 3. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the various clauses in the insurance policy certificate have not been properly construed or interpreted either by the Commissioner or by the Division Bench because of his failure to highlight those aspects. Yet again, we refrain from making any comment on the above contention raised by the petitioner at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, we are of the view that the petitioner can be afforded an opportunity to contest the matter. However, such concession can only be on terms, particularly, in view of the fact that the claimants have not been able to get the fruits of the decree so far. 5. Therefore, these review petitions are allowed and the judgment in MFA 91/05 and 111/05 are recalled. R.P.Nos.577 OF 2010 & 637 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 6. The order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the principal amount of compensation with interest thereon as ordered by the Commissioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While making the deposit, the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner by the departmental officers shall be given credit to. On such deposit being made, the Commissioner shall release the same to the claimants on furnishing sufficient security. 7. It is made clear that the deposit to be made by the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the case. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence, both oral and documentary, if they are so advised. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on March 28, 2011. The Commissioner shall dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Needless to mention that if the petitioner does not comply with the direction as regards deposit, the review petitions shall stand dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE jes