1 2025:CGHC:51855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 337 of 2025 Future General @ Generali India Limited Through- Its Legal Manager, Corporate/registered Office, 001 Delta Plaza, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Present And Correct Address First Floor, Commerce House, 7 Race Course Road, Indore (M.P.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Ku. Shikha Meshram D/o Late Yuvraj Meshram Aged About 19 Years R/o- House No. B/101, Road No. 13, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yash Meshram S/o Late Yuvraj Meshram Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Appellant No. 3, R/o- House No. B/101, Road No. 13, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Leela Meshram W/o Shamrao Meshram Aged About 69 Years R/o- House No. B/101, Road No. 13, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Alok Kumar Singh S/o Late T.K. Singh R/o- Pragati Nagar, Risali, Plot No. 09, Shantikunj, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 1) 2 ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate appears along with Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 17/10/2025 1. Heard on IA No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of this petition. 2. On due consideration and submission made by counsel for the applicant, application is allowed. Delay in filing of this petition is hereby condoned. 3. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in MAC No. 206/2019 (Ku. Shikha Meshram and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Singh and Anr.), whereby the miscellaneous appeal (compensation) was allowed in part, case was remanded back to the learned Claims Tribunal to compute the compensation based on the documentary and oral evidence available on record. 4. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that this Court has not mentioned that the amount of compensation to be computed after hearing the parties, in particular the Insurance Company/appellant. He submits that as per the policy Insurance Company has charged premium towards PA cover for owner and driver and liability of the Insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 2Lacs only. Learned Claims Tribunal while computing the compensation may not consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter as in the remand order there is no observation of the Court regarding grant of opportunity of hearing to the Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for respondent would oppose the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that no such ground is raised in the 3 pleadings or in the evidence, therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is well settled that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review petition can be considered and it was observed that a point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous. 8. In the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus: “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 9. From the submission made by counsel for the respective parties it is not appearing that there is any error apparent on the face of record. This court has already mentioned in remand order that the amount of compensation is to be computed considering documentary and oral evidence already available on record. Meaning thereby, the evidence, oral or documentary, brought by the insurance company also. It is also not the case of the 4 applicant that they discovered any new and important fact, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the order under review. After considering the documents available in record as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties, the order under review was passed. 10. Considering the grounds raised by applicant in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that applicant failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 18.06.2025. 11. Review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.10.28 11:48:33 +0530