IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 229 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.623/2006 DATED 02/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN MACA 623/06.: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BALACHANDRAN , S/O.THANKAPPAN VAIPPEL, MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN MACA.623/06: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MTPD, ERNAKULAM. 2. KABEER,S/O. HANEEFA, KALAPPURAVELIL VELLOOR VILLAGE, VADAKARA. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. COCHIN CEMENTS CO.LTD, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 229 OF 2009 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 623 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred to review the judgment dated 2.1.09. The review petition is filed by the claimant in the case. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court held that a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle is covered by the Act only policy and the expression 'any person' referred to in clause 13(b) would take in all passengers for hire or reward or otherwise. I considered the said judgment and held that in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Asha Rani case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) KLT 165 held that in the light of that authoritative pronouncement a gratuitous passenger cannot be covered. It was a point in issue before the Tribunal and now by virtue of the review petition so many things are attempted to be introduced including the conditions of the policy etc. I am R.P. 229 OF 2009 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 623 OF 2006 -:2:- afraid that such things cannot be considered in a review petition. In a review petition the Court is only expected to consider an error apparent on the face of the record or that a party was not able to produce the materials in spite of due diligence. That stage is over and I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference at the hands of this Court by invoking the power of review under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore this review petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-