IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 635 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.1692/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- C.KESHAVAN, S/O.CHAMU, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AGRL), KASARAGOD TALUK, NOW WORKING AT OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRL), MALAMPUZHA DAM PO, PALAKKAD - 678 651. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.M.V.BIPIN. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 11. 2. KRISHNA MANIYANI, S/O.SANKARA MANIYANI, MINCHIPADAVU, P.O. KUNTAR, ADHUR VILLAGE. KASARAGOD TALUK. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE), KASARAGOD. BY SRI. MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI. T.SETHUMADHAVAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.NO.635 OF 2010 in M.A.C.A.NO.1692 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This petition is filed to review the judgment passed on 3rd August, 2007 by a learned Judge of this Court. It was an appeal filed by the insurance company against the order of the Tribunal challenging its liability to pay the amount. This Court by its judgment found that there is no coverage for the passengers in a tractor which is only a goods carriage but nevertheless directed the insurance company to satisfy the amount and realise it from the owner. But while showing the rank, this Court had shown it as second respondent owner in stead of third respondent owner. Therefore operative portion of the judgment requires correction and it is substituted as follows: In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent sustained injuries on account of the negligence of the second respondent and he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.33,000/= is confirmed. But the award passed directing : 2 : R.P.NO.635 OF 2010 in M.A.C.A.NO.1692 OF 2005 the insurer to pay that amount is modified. The third respondent owner in the appeal is liable to pay the compensation. The appellant is directed to satisfy the award amount and recover the amount from the third respondent owner by executing this judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : R.P.NO.635 OF 2010 in M.A.C.A.NO.1692 OF 2005 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 5th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R