Sarojini Amma vs K.T.George
2021 Latest Caselaw 16529 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943
                     RP NO. 478 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 547/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF
                     KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/CLAIMANT ADDL. CLAIMANTS:

    1    SAROJINI AMMA ,
         AGED 86 YEARS
         W/O.SRI.KRISHNA MENON, KOTTARAPPATTU VEEDU,,
         MANAKKAPADY, KARUMALLUR VILLAGE, ALWAYE.
    2    PRIYA
         AGED 46 YEARS,
         W/O.K.K.RAMESAN,
         KOTTARAPPATTU VEEDU, MANAKKAPADY, KARUMALLUR
         VILLAGE, ALWAYE.
    3    HARITHA,
         AGED 26 YEARS
         D/O. DO-DO
    4    KAVITHA,
         AGED 23 YEARS
         D/O. DO-DO
    5    SREEHARI,
         AGED 20 YEARS
         S/O. DO-DO
         BY ADV T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    K.T.GEORGE ,
         S/O. THOMAS,
         KATTUNILATH HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-25.
    2    MR. FAZILI,
         SO.KOYA ANTHARA VEEDU,
         KAIPPAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 680
         001.
    3    THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
         KALOOR, KOCHI 17 REP. BY MANAGER.
         BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Review Petition No.478/2021

                                      2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------
              Review Petition No.478 of 2021
                                  in
                   M.A.C.A.No.547 of 2011
            ----------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 05th day of August, 2021


                                ORDER

This review petition is filed with the following grounds:

a. This Hon'ble Court did not grand adequate compensation to the appellants.

b. This Hon'ble Court omitted to grant compensation under the head loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased.

c. This Hon'ble Court also did not consider the compensation under the head filial consortium and parental consortium to the appellant.

d. This Hon'ble Court omitted to grant compensation towards medical expenses under as per Ext. A8.

2. According to me, there is nothing to review the

judgment of this Court dated 09.03.2021 in M.A.C.A.No.547 of

2011. The petitioners have not even raised these contentions

when the appeal came up for consideration. Review Petition No.478/2021

Hence there is nothing to review this judgment. The

review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                         JUDGE