IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 286 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MACA.647/2008 Dated 18/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- K.S.SAMUEL, KUZHIKKATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY KARA, KUDAYATHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN, ANITHA BHAVAN HOUSE, THOTTAMBHAGAM KARA, THIRUVALLA, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE - 689 582. 2. MOLLY SAJI, BETHEL HOSUE, NEAR B.H.S. CHANGANACHERRY 686101. 3. SHAJI.M.H., S/O. ALI HASSAN, MADEENA HOUSE, ROSAPPOOKANDAM, KUMILY 685 509. 4. DIRECTOR, HARIJAN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM 695001. 5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MUVATTUPUZHA 686661. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.P.No.286 of 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.647 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 ORDER A.K. Basheer, J. This review petition is directed against the judgment passed by us in the above appeal. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that this Court has not awarded adequate compensation towards expenses incurred by the appellant for engaging a bystander “for the remaining part of his life”. The other contention is that petitioner was not awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities though the disability was accepted as 100%. Similarly it is contended that the monthly salary should have been reckoned as Rs.6,000/-. 3. While considering the case on merit we had adverted to the relevant aspect of the case. In our view the Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore the appeal was dismissed. However, we held that the appellant would be entitled to R.P.No.286 of 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.647 of 2008 2 get interest @ 7.5% instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. In all other respects the award passed by the Tribunal was confirmed. 4. Having perused the grounds urged in the review petition we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The apparent attempt of the petitioner is to get the appeal reheard on its merit. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc