Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ANAND – Respondent
RP NO. 1134 OF 2025 | MACA NO.1388 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SHRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
For the Respondents: STANDING COUNSEL SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA, ADV. A.R.NIMOD.
A review petition can be granted to correct an error apparent in a previous judgment regarding recovery rights.
Headnote:This review petition addresses an error in judgment dated 12.12.2024 regarding recovery rights of the insurance company. The tribunal originally granted recovery rights, which were omitted in the judgment. The court found this omission and concluded that the insurance company should be allowed to recover the amount from the vehicle owner, allowing the review petition accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition filed by insurer for judgment clarification. (Para 1) |
| 2. court examines the omission regarding recovery rights. (Para 2) |
| 3. identified error requires correction in judgment. (Para 3) |
| 4. final ruling allows the review petition. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
This review petition is filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer in the appeal seeking for a review of the judgment dated
12.12.2024 in M.A.C.A.No.1388 of 2013 passed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the tribunal, in the original award, had granted recovery right to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner, who is the 3rd respondent in the review petition. But in the judgment dated 12.12.2024, this court has omitted to grant the recovery right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle and seeks for review of the judgment.
3. On a perusal of the award and the judgment, it is found that this Court, while rendering the judgment dated 12.12.2024, had omitted to grant the right of recovery to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the mistake in the judgment requires to be corrected accordingly.
4. In the result, the R.P. is disposed of as follows:-
In page 10, after the last paragraph of the judgment, the following sentence shall be added.
‘On payment of the compensation amount, the insurance company will be at liberty to recover the said amount from respondent No.1, who is the owner of the offending vehicle.’
Accordingly, the review petition is allowed.
Sd/-
