IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 470 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.248/2009 Dated 09/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- K.K.DEVASSY, S/O.KAVALAKKAT KUNJIPPALU KARANCHIRA DESOM, PO, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNA PRABHU,KALAPURAKOVILAKAM LOKAMALESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VENUGOPALAN, S/O.KUNNUPARAMBIL GANGADHARAN, EDAMUTTAM DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE EDAMUTTAM PO,THRISSUR. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD P.B.NO.66 ALENGADAN BUILDING, TANA IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P.No.470 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 ORDER Basant,J. This application is for review of the judgment dated 9/2/09. This Court considering the impugned award passed by the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. 2. What are the errors? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actually there was hospitalisation for a period of 101 days; whereas the Tribunal had taken into account only 78 days. The compensation for 78 days in hospital was awarded at Rs.7,800/-. According to the petitioner, actually there was 101 days of hospitalisation. It is conceded that on the basis of the documents marked before the court below, only 78 days hospitalisation can be ascertained. R.P.No.470 of 2009 -: 2 :- The details are available in para-6 of the award. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, two documents were also there to show that there was a further period of hospitalisation for 23 days. Those documents were not marked before the Tribunal. The learned counsel contends that Annexure-A1 annexed to this review petition was produced and that shows hospitalisation for a period of 13 days. For the balance period of 10 days, no documents have admittedly been produced. 3. We are unable to agree that any error apparent on the face of the record has been committed. The relevant documents were admittedly not marked before the Tribunal. One of them was not admittedly produced also. No oral evidence on that aspect was tendered also. In these circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting invocation of the jurisdiction in review. 4. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.No.470 of 2009 -: 3 :- R.P.No.470 of 2009 -: 4 :-