1 / 4 2026:CGHC:7995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 48 of 2026 (Arising out of the order passed in MAC No. 810/2020 dated 09.07.2025) • National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Office Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur Post And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Indrawati Jaiswal Wd/o Late Devchand Jaiswal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Shivam Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Devchand Jaiswal Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Indrawati Jaiswal, R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G. 3. Subham Jaiswal S/o Late Devchand Jaiswal Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Indrawati Jaiswal, R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4. Ramkesh Jaiswal S/o Late Duryodhan Jaiswal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Kamalawati Jaiswal W/o Ramesh Jaiswal Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.)r/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 6. Lalla Prasad S/o Ramesh Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 7. Radheshyam Saket S/o Lalji Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mahuli, Police Station Chandni, Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 8. Smt. Asha Devi Proprietor, Hero Agency Asha, Automobile Manendragarh Road, Surajpur Post Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) 9. Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o Anand Kumar Gupta Aged About 62 Years Proprietor Anand Hero Agency, Automobiles Deviganj Road, Ambikapur (C.G.) Police Station Post And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.23 11:32:13 +0530 2 / 4 For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13/02/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, application seeking condonation of delay in filing review application. 2. On due consideration of the pleadings made in I.A. No. 01/2026, it is allowed and the delay in filing review application is hereby condoned. 3. Review petition is heard. 4. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 09.07.2025 (Anexure P-1) passed in MAC No. 810/2020, whereby the appeal filed by Insurance Company was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that while passing the order in MAC No. 810 of 2020, this Court escaped consideration of the provisions of Section 163 (A) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ningamma & Another Vs. United Insurance Company Limited and others reported in AIR 2009 SC 3056. Deceased met with an accident while driving the motorcycle and was not holding license to drive the offending motor cycle insured by Insurance Company, but even then liability is fastened upon the Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 8 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that the ground raised in this review petition is not a ground to exercise review jurisdiction. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. In miscellaneous appeal (claims), counsel representing the Insurance Company has raised argument which was considered in para no. 5 of the order, subject matter of review wherein learned counsel representing Insurance Company made two folds submission that motorcycle was not 3 / 4 involved in accident and accident was the result of self negligence of deceased and further that he was not possessed with license to drive the motorcycle. 9. In the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal the issue with regard to breach of policy conditions was considered and in para no. 13 of the award of Claims Tribunal, it is categorically recorded that license of the deceased was seized and it was valid up to 09.06.2025 whereas the date of accident was 25.10.2017. 10. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. The power of review is not an inherent power and must be exercised strictly within the parameters prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of review is very limited and can be invoked only in cases where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or where there exists some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A review cannot be sought merely on the ground that the decision is erroneous on merits. 11. The review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and substitute a different view merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts. 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. 12.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: 4 / 4 “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.” 13. 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 review petitioner failed to make out a ground warranting review of the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in MAC No. 810/2020. 14. Accordingly, review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Alfiza JUDGE