JUDGMENT S.K. Kar, J. 1. This review petition is intended for review of the order passed by this Court (myself) on 28.8.2002 holding that claimant in MACT 52 of 1992 was not entitled to claim compensation under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 2. The claimant was brother P. Thomas, claiming his relationship with the deceased brother Alex Chandy Thomas as 'local superior of the Montfort Brothers', but the review petition has been presented by the Montfort Brothers of St. Gabriel, a religious trust represented by Brother P. Thomas, it was held by the impugned judgment of this Court that the claimant was not the legal representative of the deceased. 3. It is the admitted position that the writ petition was not properly contested before the Court and present review Petitioner who, truly speaking, was not a party therein. It requires no illustration that provision of Chapter X, XI and XII of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is enacted for the purpose of giving immediate relief to the victims of vehicular accidents or to the legal representatives of such victims who met with death and assessment of compensation is done on the basis of dependency of the legal representatives. Loss of dependency, impact of shock and agony etc. are the factors to be considered for quantification of the award of compensation. Here on study of the averments given in the review petition I find hardly there is any case for relief which could have been surfaced. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the initial petition for compensation before the MACT was filed by Brother Thomas in his capacity as local superior of Montfort Brothers and not by the present review Petitioner, i.e. Montfort Brothers of St. Gabriel, a religious Trust. It is stated in the review petition that Brothers of St. Gabriel is an International Religious Congregation founded by St. Montfort in the year 1716 and the school where the deceased was serving falls under jurisdiction of' Guwahati Provincialate'; but facts remains that 'Guwahati Provincialate' was not the claimant before the claims Tribunal. Then again, it will be significant to note that what has been stated in the review petition. Gabriel is an International Religious Congregation founded by St. Montfort in the year 1716 and the school where the deceased was serving falls under jurisdiction of' Guwahati Provincialate'; but facts remains that 'Guwahati Provincialate' was not the claimant before the claims Tribunal. Then again, it will be significant to note that what has been stated in the review petition. The excerpts from page 11 and 12 of the same are reproduced below: (ii) That a person can become a member of this Religious Congregation voluntarily, without any compulsion out of his free will and choice and his concerned for the suffering humanity and their upliftment. By becoming a member of this Society, he pledges once and for all to dedicate himself fully and without any reservations at the service of the Society in whatever work is assigned to him. Further, he is required to renounce all his family ties, parents, brothers, sisters and other close relatives and become fully dependant on the Society for his future life, (iii) .... In fact, he cannot sent any money or material things to his family or kith and kin. This is in accordance with the constitution of the Brothers of St. Gabriel. Article 60 of the said Constitution is quoted below: Whatever the Brother receives by way of salary, subsidies, gifts, pension or from insurances or other such benefits belongs to the community as by right and goes into the common purse' (emphasis supplied) Therefore, on its own admission, as reproduced above, I find the review Petitioner has hardly any locus standi to claim compensation as legal representative of the deceased in this particular case under the facts and circumstances as stated in the claim petition as well as in this review petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in support of his affidavit-in-opposition has contended that there is no error apparent on the face of record and that particularly the law under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure under the facts and circumstances of the case is never attracted. That Court has already considered the status of claimant and decided in negative his claim as legal representative of the deceased. 5. Without lengthening the discussions, I find the argument already made would be sufficient to come to the conclusion that sufficient materials are not available before this Court to review the order passed earlier. 6. That Court has already considered the status of claimant and decided in negative his claim as legal representative of the deceased. 5. Without lengthening the discussions, I find the argument already made would be sufficient to come to the conclusion that sufficient materials are not available before this Court to review the order passed earlier. 6. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed Petition dismissed