Nousher P vs The General Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 14943 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
                                &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
 THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        RP NO. 833 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 271/2014 OF HIGH COURT
                            OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

           NOUSHER P, AGED 37 YEARS
           S/O. MAYIN, RESIDING AT PALAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O
           KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           BY ADV AVM.SALAHUDIN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE GENERAL SECRETARY
           JAMMAT E ISLAMI HIND KERALA, 5/3520 A, HIRA
           CENTRE P.O, PUTHIYARA, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-
           673004.
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 673004
    2      HIFSU RAHMAN T,
           S/O.UNEENKUTTY, RESIDING AT THAZHISSERI HOUSE,
           P.O.VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM-676505.
    3      ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE,
           A. SONS ARCHADE, 4TH FLOOR, CHEROOTY ROAD,
           KOZHIKODE - 673001.

        THIS   REVIEW    PETITION      HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
RP No. 833 of 2018



                               ORDER

Ravikumar, J.

This petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated

22.11.2017 in MACA No.271 of 2014 in OP(MV)No.237 of 2012 of

the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode.

Taking note of the fact that the grievances of the appellant

raised in the appeal were relating to the fixation of the monthly

income and assessment of the permanent disability by the

Tribunal, this Court addressed only those questions. Finding

that the petitioner claimed that he is a vegetable merchant by

profession and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and taking

note of the fact that the Tribunal had taken only monthly income

notionally at Rs.4,500/- after considering the circumstances and

the relevant factors, this Court fixed the monthly income for

calculation purpose as Rs.9,000/-. Evidently, the age of the

appellant at the time of accident was also taken into account in

that regard. As relates the grievance against the fixation of

permanent disability, this Court took note of the fact that to

RP No. 833 of 2018

support the said contention the petitioner had produced only

Ext.A5, which is a disability certificate issued by a Doctor, who

had only perused the treatment certificate and had not actually

treated the petitioner. Thereupon, relying upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1)

KLT 620 SC] holding that if the disability certificate is one issued

by a Doctor who had only examined the injured and issued the

disability certificate after perusing the treatment records, then

the mere production of the said certificate is not at all sufficient

to establish the extent of disability.

2. This Court also considered the question whether the

percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal as per the Award

invites interference. Taking note of the fact that even in the

absence of a certificate from a Doctor, who had actually

examined and treated the petitioner and the fact that the

petitioner had produced only a disability certificate issued by the

Doctor, who have not treated the petitioner but issued certificate

after perusing the treatment records, the Tribunal took the

RP No. 833 of 2018

disability as 25%. This Court did not interfere with the

assessment of permanent disability by the Tribunal.

3. We have gone through the review petition. There

cannot be any doubt with respect to the scope of exercise of the

power under the review jurisdiction. It is available to be

exercised if an error apparent on the face of the record is

brought out. The nature of the arguments and the grounds

raised in the review petition make it clear that virtually the

contention is that those issues were erroneously considered and

decided by this Court. Certainly, such a contention is wholly

unacceptable in a review petition.

4. The petitioner has raised another ground to seek

review of the judgment. According to him, he continues to

undergo treatment even after the award was passed in OP(MV)

No.237/2012. However, no reason whatsoever, which can be

accepted, is assigned for non-production of documents relating

the same during the pendency of the appeal. Now, the petitioner

seeks for acceptance of such documents and to re-write the

RP No. 833 of 2018

judgment. We find no reason or justification for exercising the

review jurisdiction in acceptance of such contentions especially,

in the absence of non-production of such documents during the

pendency of the appeal. There is absolutely no scope for

revisiting the judgment in exercise of the review jurisdiction.

In the said circumstances, this review petition must fail,

and consequently, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN Judge

das

RP No. 833 of 2018

APPENDIX OF RP 833/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 THE ORIGINALS OF THE MEDICAL BILLS WITH RESPECT TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.