Review petitions aim to correct apparent errors regarding omitted facts critical for compensation awards.

O R D E R

This review petition is filed against the judgment dated

28.04.2023 in MACA No.1940 of 2016.

2. The petitioner filed O.P.(MV) No.1607 of 2011 under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 claiming an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam awarded an amount of Rs.19,02,600/- as total compensation and directed the insurer to satisfy the award with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate cost.

3. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the above MACA and this Court by judgment dated 28.04.2023 found that the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,89,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation along with proportionate cost.

4. In the original petition, the petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for future treatment expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. In the appeal, this Court found that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards future treatment expenses. Since an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was already awarded by the Tribunal, this Court granted an additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said count. This Court further observed that the petitioner will be entitled to the interest on future treatment expenses only from the date of the award. In this review petition, the petitioner contends that she had incurred an amount of Rs.4,43,230.54 towards treatment expenses after the disposal of the original petition by the Tribunal. The petitioner further contends that, while passing judgment dated 28.04.2023, this Court omitted to consider the medical bills, vouchers and other records produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2022 in the appeal relating to the treatment undergone by her after the disposal of the original petition and there is error apparent on the face of record in the judgment.

5. This Court by order dated 19.05.2025 observed that on going through the records including the documents produced along with I.A No.1 of 2022 in the MACA, the bills, vouchers and treatment records produced by the petitioner ought to have been taken note of while awarding future treatment expenses. Accordingly, this Court directed the respondent to file counter affidavit to the review petition as to admissibility of the medical bills and vouchers produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2022.

6. The respondent filed a counter affidavit resisting the averments in the review petition and contending that there are several duplicate bills and vouchers produced by the petitioner which cannot be accepted.

7. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24.09.2025, the matter was sent for mediation to explore the possibility of a settlement in respect of the future treatment expenses incurred by the petitioner. However, the mediator has submitted a report dated 10.10.2025 stating that the matter could not be settled.

8. When the review petition came up for further consideration on 27.10.2025, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company that only certain bills produced by the petitioner along with I.A No.1 of 2022 in the MACA are admissible. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the details of the bills that are not admissible and the reason for the same.

9. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent has filed a counter statement dated 04.12.2025 wherein the details of the medical bills that are acceptable and not admissible have been given. Reason