Mathew Kunchandy vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 15360 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                          RP NO. 416 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MFA 95/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                              ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER:

          MATHEW KUNCHANDY
          S/O. MATHEW CHANDA PILLAI, BETHEL MANDIRAM, KATTADY,
          KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 506.

          BY ADVS.
          ASOK M.CHERIAN
          N.SATHEESH
          K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
          PRIYA CAROL



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
          DO.NO.1, KOTTARATHIL BUILDING ANNEX, PALAYAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
          REGIONAL OFFICE, M. G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

    2     NAZEERA
          W/O. LATE SHAJAHAN, SHEJEER MANZIL, PARAVILA PUTHEN
          VEEDU, AYIROOR, PANGODE, BHARATHANOOR P. O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 310.

    3     MUHAMMED SHAN
          S/O. LATE SHAJAHAN, SHEJEER MANZIL, PARAVILA PUTHEN
          VEEDU, AYIROOR, PANGODE, BHARATHANOOR P. O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 310.

    4     RAHIM
          S/O. IBRAHIM KUNJU,AMINA MANZIL, KUMIL P. O.,
          KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM - 691 506.

    5     HAREERUDHEEN
          S/O. ALIYARUKUNU, SOBHITHA MANZIL, PLAVARA POIKA
          MURIYIL, PUZHAKAM KUMIL P. O., PANGODE, TRIVANDRUM -
 RP NO. 416 OF 2021
                                     2

            695 542.



            SMT. K.S. SANTHI - SC(R1)




     THIS   REVIEW     PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 416 OF 2021
                                    3

                             O R D E R

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court

dated 05.03.2020, has been filed by the petitioner with an

allegation that, though this Court has recorded the contention that

the victim was not employed by him, same has not been left open

to be considered by the Trial Court, when the order of remand was

made.

2. I have heard Sri.K.Janardhana Shenoy - learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri.Saijo Hassan - learned

counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5; Smt.K.S.Santhi -

learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

3. I am afraid that this Court cannot find favour with the

submissions of the petitioner as impelled in this review petition

because, when one examines paragraph 7 thereof, it is clear that

this Court has found that the Compensation Commissioner has

already concluded that the victim - Sri.Shajeer, was employed by

the petitioner (shown as the 3rd respondent in MFA No.95/2019).

It is pertinent that the appeal was filed not by the petitioner, but RP NO. 416 OF 2021

by the Insurance Company.

4. Indubitably, therefore, the petitioner had no challenge

to any of the findings of the Compensation Commissioner; and it

is needless to say that he cannot do so in a Review Petition, and

that too against the judgment which was obtained by the

Insurance Company. As long as the petitioner did not challenge

the findings of the Compensation Commissioner through an

independent appeal, it cannot be permitted to allow him to say

that the findings therein should be allowed to be challenged in

this indirect manner.

In the afore circumstances, finding no reason to entertain

this review petition, I dismiss it; however, without making any

order as to costs.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/22/07/2021