1 CGHC010191902026 2026:CGHC:30527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 182 of 2026 1 - Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Third Floor Chawla Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Tata Trailor No. C G /07/e/8183) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ranmohan Maravi S/o Bagar Maravi Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Jamdih P.S. Lundra Tehsil Kundra (Dhaurpur) Distt- Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Ranjeet Kumar Thakur S/o Govind Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Jargarh P.S. Gadhwa Distt- Gadhwa (Jharkhand ) Driver Of Tata Trailor No C G/07/e /8183) 3 - M/s Naveen Agro Industries Partner Vinod Kumar Malik S/o Mathura Prasad Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Ajirama Manendragarh Road Ambikapur P.S. Gandhinagar Distt- Sarguja Chhattsgarh (Owner Fo Tata Trailor No C G /07/e /8183) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 20.07.2026 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 290 of 2025, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the award dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in MACT No. 230/2022, was dismissed and the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal was affirmed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that arising out of the same accident, four claim petitions were filed before the learned Claims Tribunal by different claimants. It is submitted that in one of the connected matters arising out of Claim Case No. 232/2022, the petitioner-Insurance Company had preferred Civil Revision No. 291 of 2025, which was also decided by this Court on 17.11.2025. Learned counsel further submits that while dismissing Civil Revision No. 291 of 2025, this Court had recorded an observation that the dismissal of the said revision would remain confined to the facts of that case and shall not affect any other connected matters arising out of the same accident. However, while dismissing Civil Revision No. 290 of 2025, no such 3 observation was incorporated. It is therefore prayed that the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Civil Revision No. 290 of 2025 may be reviewed to the limited extent of incorporating similar observations as made in Civil Revision No. 291 of 2025. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. The scope of review jurisdiction is very limited. A review cannot be entertained merely for the purpose of re-appreciation of the matter or for seeking modification of an order unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground recognized for exercise of review jurisdiction. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Civil Revision No. 290 of 2025. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that a similar observation, as recorded by this Court while deciding Civil Revision No. 291 of 2025, was not incorporated in the order passed in the present revision petition. 6. The absence of such observation in the order dated 17.11.2025 cannot be said to constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The order passed in Civil Revision No. 290 of 2025 was based on the facts 4 and circumstances of the said case and the same does not call for any review. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for review of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Civil Revision No. 290 of 2025 is made out by the petitioner. 8. Consequently, the present review petition is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha