1 CGHC010098402025 2026:CGHC:28398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 57 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jambai W/o Late Samelal @ Samay Lal Aged About 36 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Minor In Annexure A-1) R/o Village Mongara, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Kumari Satya D/o Late Samelal @ Samay Lal Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jambai, R/o Village Mongara, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 3 - Mahendra S/o Late Samelal @ Samay Lal Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jambai, R/o Village Mongara, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 4 - Ku. Prabha D/o Late Samelal @ Samay Lal Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jambai, R/o Village Mongara, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 5 - Ku. Shardha D/o Late Samelal @ Samay Lal Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jambai, R/o Village Mongara, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 6 - Ku. Sakhiya D/o Late Samelal @ Samay Lal Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jambai, R/o Village Mongara, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Petitioners. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.12 13:22:21 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Tikeshwar S/o Yodhan Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Temari, Thana Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner) 2 - Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kachehari Chowk Jel Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s). (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. Heard on IA No. 1/2025, an application for the condonation of delay. 2. Upon due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, the delay of 71 days is condoned. The application is allowed. 3. This review petition has been filed seeking the recall of the award dated 22.11.2024 passed by this Court in MAC No. 1318/2018 (Smt. Jambai and others Vs. Tikeshwar and another). 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicants/claimants had filed the aforementioned Motor Accident Appeal seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Additional Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, vide its award dated 17.04.2018 in Claim Case No. H- 11/2017. While passing the award dated 22.11.2024, this Court allowed the appeal filed by the claimants, enhanced the compensation amount, and directed the payment of an additional compensation of Rs. 4,12,632/- over 3 and above the compensation of Rs. 7,78,750/- previously awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Subsequently, this review petition was filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the award dated 17.04.2018, the learned Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation amount on the ground that the offending vehicle was driven by a driver who did not possess a valid driving license, thereby constituting a breach of the policy conditions. However, MAC No. 1318/2018 was filed on the ground that the Insurance Company had failed to prove a willful breach of policy conditions by the owner. Therefore, as a third party, liability ought to have been fastened upon the Insurance Company, and a direction of 'pay and recover' should have been passed. It is submitted that this aspect was not considered by this Court while passing the impugned award dated 22.11.2024. In view of these submissions, the petitioner has made the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this review petition and to recall and modify the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in the M.A.(C) No. 1318/2018 and to seek permission with direction to insurer company respondent no. 2 to pay enhancement compensation amount of Rs. 11,19,382/- with a payment of interest and moreover, the insurance company may recover the compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle, in the interest of justice." 6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents placed on record. 4 7. From a perusal of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it appears that by way of this review petition, the petitioner is seeking a modification of the award dated 22.11.2024 so that the liability of paying the compensation is shifted from the owner/employer to the Insurance Company. This responsibility was also not fastened upon the Respondent/Insurance Company by the Commissioner-cum-Labour Court on the ground of a breach of policy conditions. Hence, it appears that under the garb of a review petition, the petitioner is seeking liberty to argue the entire case afresh on merits, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 8. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 9. Further, a review petition has a limited scope. In the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, [(2019) 20 SCC 753], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the ambit and scope of the power of review, considered its various earlier judgments and held that it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is held that the power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. 10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) 5 Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal positions, it is evident that the petitioner is attempting to re-argue the core merits of the case under the guise of a review. Since the error pointed out by the petitioner requires a process of detailed reasoning and does not constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record, it falls well outside the limited statutory scope of Review Petition. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to recall the order dated 22.11.2024. The review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay