1 CGHC010256772026 2026:CGHC:35762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 222 of 2026 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road-3 Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 (Insurer), District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rakesh Pratap Singh S/o Late Lokesh Kumar @ Lallu Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste Kshatriya, R/o Mishra Gali Bhaiyathan Road Surajpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Nita Singh D/o Late Lokesh Kumar @ Lallu Singh Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Her Mother Smt. Usha Singh, Caste Kshatriya, R/o Mishra Gali Bhaiyathan Road Surajpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ganesh Prasad Gupta S/o Aklu Prasad Gupta Mahatma Gandhi Ward Bauripara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 12/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly review/Recall/ modify the order/judgment dated 19.01.2026 in MAC no. 751/2018 and deduct the compensation to the extent of 50% towards contributory negligence so for as the liability of the review petitioner, in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appellant had preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 19.09.2017 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, whereby total compensation of Rs.48,15,000/- was assessed. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had recorded a finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and, accordingly, deducted 50% of the compensation, determining the amount payable at Rs.24,07,500/-. The said finding was not challenged by the claimants. This Court, while deciding the appeal, affirmed the finding regarding contributory negligence and reassessed the compensation at Rs.43,40,000/- by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. However, due to an inadvertent typographical/clerical error, the aforesaid 50% deduction towards contributory negligence was not applied to the reassessed compensation. 3 Learned counsel submits that the same constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, as this Court had already noticed and affirmed the finding of 50% contributory negligence. Hence, the present review petition has been filed seeking correction of the said inadvertent error and consequential reduction of the compensation by 50%. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under review. 4. From the perusal of the order, it appears that this Court has not interfered with the other terms and conditions of the award, including the apportionment of liability. The order dated 19.01.2026 has only considered and modified the quantum of compensation by reducing the amount awarded, while the other findings and directions contained in the original award, including the determination of liability, have remained unaltered. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the liability of the Insurance Company has been enhanced from 50% to 100% is misconceived and is not borne out from the record. 5. This Court has neither altered nor modified the finding relating to the apportionment of liability while passing the order dated 19.01.2026. Thus, the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the liability of 50% has been modified or enhanced to 100% is equally misconceived. The order dated 19.01.2026 is required to be understood in its proper perspective, and no modification in respect of the liability was made therein. 4 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 7. The grounds sought to be raised by the review petitioner in the present review petition essentially seek reconsideration of the issues already considered and decided by this Court. Such grounds cannot be permitted to be agitated in exercise of the limited review jurisdiction, particularly when no error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to re-argue the matter or seek a fresh appreciation of the issues which have already been adjudicated. Even otherwise, upon perusal of the order under review, no error 5 apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground warranting interference in review jurisdiction is made out. 8. It is also pertinent to note that, by the order dated 19.01.2026, this Court has only considered and reduced the amount of compensation on the basis of the income assessed for the purpose of computation. The other findings, terms and conditions of the award, including the determination of liability, have neither been disturbed nor modified by this Court and have remained unchanged. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground is made out warranting review of the order dated 19.01.2026. 10. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat