1 2026:CGHC:26605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 173 of 2020 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch- Office Ambedkar Chowk, Banaras Road Ambikapur Road, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Represented Through The In-Charge, T.P. Hub Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Opp. Rajeev Plaza, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) ... Applicant Versus 1 - Hadeesh Miyan S/o Ismail Miyan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chaubey, Post Chaubey Police Station- Chalkusa, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand., District : Hazaribag, Jharkhand 2 - Sera Khatun W/o Hadeesh Miyan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Chaubey, Post Chaubey Police Station- Chalkusa, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand., District : Hazaribag, Jharkhand 3 - Abdul Samad S/o Hadeesh Miyan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chaubey, Post Chaubey Police Station- Chalkusa, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand., District : Hazaribag, Jharkhand 4 - Aslam Ansari S/o Hadeesh Miyan Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Sera Khatun, W/o Hadeesh Miyan, Aged 46 Years. R/o Village Chaubey, Post Chaubey Police Station- Chalkusa, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand., District : Hazaribag, Jharkhand 5 - Devanand Singh S/o Amarkantak Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Sarnadih, Police Station- Balrampur, Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jagmohan Das S/o Budhan Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o- Village Sarnadih, Police Station- Balrampur, Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Mr. RN Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advs. For Respondents : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate respectively ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 30.06.2026 1. Heard on IA No.01, which is an application seeking condonation of delay of 572 days in filing this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay is on account of filing the review petition before the tribunal, therefore, the same being unintentional one is liable to be condoned and present appeal deserves to be heard on merits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the application and submits that the impugned award was passed on 26.02.2018 by the tribunal, against which, the applicant filed review petition, which also stood dismissed on 23.09.2019 and, thereafter, the present appeal was filed before this Court on 17.01.2020 i.e. after a delay of about more than 04 months and, no plausible justification has been offered for such a delay by the applicant in his application. Even otherwise, review against an award on merit is impermissible, as it is trite law that the power of review inherent in the Claims Tribunal is only to rectify procedural, arithmetical, clerical error or defect made by the Tribunal to prevent abuse of its process and, in absence of statutory provision, the power of review of the award cannot be exercised by the Claims Tribunal except in the case where the award has been obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation (See: WP227-821-2018 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Amol Singh and others) decided on 25.09.2018). Thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by time. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, in light of the decision of this Court in Amol Singh (supra), review against the impugned award was not maintainable on merits, as the power of review can only be exercised by the tribunal in case where the award has been obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation or there is any defect relating to procedural, arithmetical or clerical error, therefore, the ground raised by the applicant that delay occurred in filing this appeal is on account of filing the review petition before the tribunal, cannot be entertained and same is liable to be rejected. Furthermore, the impugned award has been passed by the tribunal on 26.02.2018, against which, the applicant filed review petition, which also stood dismissed on 23.09.2019 and, thereafter, the present appeal was filed before this Court on 17.01.2020 i.e. after a delay of about more than 04 months and, no reasonable justification has been offered by the applicant for such a delay. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has not offered any justifiable and plausible reason for condoning the delay of 572 days in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if