1 / 3 2025:CGHC:55128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 364 of 2025 (Arising out of the order passed in MAC No. 1196/2024 dated 20.08.2025) 1. Smt. Jal Bai W/o Late Katthar Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Purani Basti, Risdi, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 2. Arun Singh S/o Katthar Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Purani Basti, Risdi, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 3. Usha Kanwar, D/o Late Khattar Singh, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Purani Basti, Risdi, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 4. Pushpa Kanwar, D/o Late Khattar Singh, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Purani Basti, Risdi, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 5. Karan Singh, S/o Late Khattar Singh, Aged About 15 Years (Through Mother Legal Guardian Smt. Jal Bai) R/o Village Purani Basti, Risdi, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1. Banne Singh S/o Dilip Singh, Aged About 23 Years R/o Kerpura, Tehsil Bava, District Nagpur (Rajasthan)..........(Driver Of Hyva No. Rj-37-Ga-8611) 2. Chenaram S/o Shrawan Ram, R/o Kalabhantha Ki Dhani Swarnpura, Dist.- Nagpur (Rajasthan)..........(Owner Of Hyva No. Rj-37-Ga-8611) 3. United Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, Station Road, Sitamani, Korba, District Korba (C.G.).........(Insurer Of Hyva No. Rj- 37-Ga-8611) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 10/11/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 1. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed in MAC No. 1196/2024, whereby the appeal filed by claimants therein was disposed of enhancing the amount of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for applicants would submit that this review petition is filed on the ground that this Court erred in considering income of deceased on notional basis. She submits that the claimants had produced salary slips issued by the contractor under whom the deceased was working showing monthly payments made to him and also proved the same by examining another employee of the contractor. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for applicants and would submit that this Court considering the documentary evidence with regard to salary of the deceased and the evidence of AW-3 has rightly assessed monthly income of deceased for computing compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The contention of learned counsel for applicants in this review petition is that this Court while passing the order for enhancement of compensation in MAC No. 1196/2024 dated 20.08.2025, has not considered the documentary evidence Ext. P-14 to P-17 produced by claimants in support of plea of monthly income thereby awarding less amount of compensation. 6. The ground raised in this review petition is the same which has already been raised in miscellaneous appeal and the same was duly considered by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed and therefore the review petitioner will not be permitted to ask for re-appreciation of facts and grounds already considered and decided. In fact, the instant review petition on the grounds enumerated therein appears to be an appeal in disguise. Such ground does not constitute error apparent on the face of the record so as to exercise jurisdiction of review. 3 / 3 7. It is well settled in law 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. Considering the grounds raised by applicants in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioners failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed in MAC No. 1196/2024. 10. Accordingly, review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE