IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 29 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MACA.638/2004 DATED 12.6.2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS --------------------------------------- 1. T.GEENA, MANKULATHU VEEDU, EAST PATTOM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GEENA DIVYA(MINOR), DO. DO., REP. BY HER LEGAL AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE IST PETITIONER. 3. K.AMBUJAKSHI, VENKETESWARA NILAYAM, VETTU ROAD, KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No. 29 of 2010 in M.A.C.A.No.638 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 ORDER Ravindran, J. This is an application seeking review of the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 12th June, 2008 in M.A.C.A.No.638 of 2004. The appeal filed by the legal heirs of the victim of a motor accident was allowed in part and compensation was enhanced by a further sum of Rupees ten thousand. The Division Bench declined to enhance the compensation on other grounds. 2. In this review petition the petitioners seek enhancement of the compensation. It is contended that the fixation of the monthly income at Rupees three thousand is on the lower side and that having regard to Ext.A9 certificate and the periodical increases in salary, this Court ought to have fixed a higher monthly R.P.No.29 of 2010 - 2 - income. What the review petitioners/appellants seek in this review petition is virtually a rehearing of the appeal which, it is well settled, is not permissible in a review petition. We, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the review petition. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns