Kerala High Court
Mahadevan K vs Lissy Vincent on 17 October, 2025
1
R.P. No. 657 of 2025 2025:KER:77208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
RP NO. 657 OF 2025 IN MACA NO.2514 OF 2019
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN MACA:
MAHADEVAN K., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNA IYER, GANESH
NIVAS, 37/556, MUTTATHIL LANE, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB
SMT.V.MANGALA VENKETARAMAN
SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN MACA:
1 LISSY VINCENT, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O LATE VINCENT, ETTUTHAIKKAL
HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOR P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 027.
2 MARY LINCY, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O LATE VINCENT, ETTUTHAIKKAL
HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOR P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 027.
3 RINCY @ RINCY LINSON, AGED 41 YEARS,
D/O LATE VINCENT, ETTUTHAIKKAL HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH
CHITTOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 027.
4 BIBIN GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O LATE VINCENT, ETTUTHAIKKAL
HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOR P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 027.
5 JAMES JOSEPH P.J., AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O JOSEPH P.J., PALLIPADATH
HOUSE, NORTHERN SIDE OF PARTHASARADY TEMPLE, EDAYAKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 027.
6 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., WHITE HOUSE,
1ST FLOOR, KALOOR-KADAVANTHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHARA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER., PIN - 682 020.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2025, THE COURT ON 17.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
R.P. No. 657 of 2025 2025:KER:77208
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.P. No. 657 of 2025
in
M.A.C.A. No. 2514 of 2019
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the appellant in M.A.C.A No. 2514 of
2019 against the judgment dated 15.01.2025.
2. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle and the first
respondent before the Tribunal and the appeal was filed challenging the
order permitting the insurance company to recover the award amount
from the owner of the vehicle after payment to the petitioners and also
challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that while
dismissing the appeal, this Court has enhanced the compensation
payable to the claimants and this Court ought to have found that in
order to avoid liability by the insurance company, the insurer has to
prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
R.P. No. 657 of 2025 2025:KER:77208
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the policy conditions, as held
by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh [2004 KHC 314].
5. This Court relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others
(2011(3) KHC 595) and Mathew Alexander v. Muhammed Shafi
(2023 INSC 621) for accepting the police charge sheet as prima facie
sufficient evidence of negligence against the driver of the offending
vehicle. This Court has also considered the contention raised by the
appellant regarding his relationship with the second respondent in the
claim petition before the Tribunal in paragraph 15 of the judgment and
also recorded a clear finding that there is no satisfactory evidence to
arrive at a conclusion that the offending vehicle was driven by a driver
having valid driving licence at the time of occurrence and that there is
violation of the policy conditions by the insured and in such a situation, I
find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in arriving
at a conclusion that the insurance company is liable only to satisfy the
decree as against the third party at the first instance and that the
R.P. No. 657 of 2025 2025:KER:77208
company will be having the right to recover the amount paid in terms of
the award to the claimant, from the owner of the vehicle, as held by a
Division Bench of this Court in Ahammedkutty Haji v. Amina [2017
(2) KLT 600].
6. Another contention of the review petitioner is that this Court is
not justified in enhancing the compensation to the claimants in an
appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle. This Court relied on the decision
of the Honourable Supreme Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand
Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others [2022 KHC 7080] and
Nagappa v. Gurudayal singh [2003 KHC 15] in paragraph 22 of the
judgment to arrive at a finding that grant of just and fair compensation
is a statutory responsibility of the court and therefore, I find no merit in
the argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that there
is material error apparent on the face of the record.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar v.
Rambhai [(2007) 15 SCC 513 = 2002 ICO 6370] held thus:
"... The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review
petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any
R.P. No. 657 of 2025 2025:KER:77208
error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to
stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error,
finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed."
8. In Asmath Khan v. Chadrahasa Bangara [2006 (4) KLT
494], a Division Bench of this Court held that even though there is
power to review in appropriate circumstances in the interest of justice,
the Tribunal has no power to sit in appeal over its own award in the
guise of review and that the review proceedings are not equivalent to an
appeal or revision and a review petition can be entertained only on the
ground of error apparent on the face of record.
9. It is well settled that a review is, by no means, an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but
lies only for patent error, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [(2013) 8 SCC 320]. In N. Anantha
Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Honourable
Supreme Court held that review does not permit rehearing of the matter
on merits and in Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nai and
Ors [AIR 2017 SC 1432], the Honourable Supreme Court held that in
order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident
and not to be found out by a process of reason.
10. The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review,
the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue the
R.P. No. 657 of 2025 2025:KER:77208
questions which have already been addressed and decided and
therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed
In the result, this review petition is dismissed.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
