Oivision Bendl v. Maheshwari, aged

Smt. Sharda, Wd/o Khileshwar Verm, aged about 25 years, Kumari Mukeshwari, Khileshwar Verma, aged about 5 through years, guardian/mother Smt. Bai, Wd/o Khileshwar Verma, Sharda natural aged about 25 years,

3.- Keshav Kumar, S/o Khileshwar Verma, aged about 3 through years, natural guardian/mother Smt. Bai, Wd/o Khileshwar Verma, Sharda aged about 25 years, All above R/o Village Kanera, Post Kanera, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office P.B. 51, Malviya

<'" Nagar Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Smt. Mantora, W/o Ramdhan ^ Verma, aged about 45 years, R/o y Village Kandayi, Post Ninva, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) Ramdhan, S/o Firanta Verma, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kandayi, Post Ninva, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) Respondents No. 4, 5, & 6 are non-applicants before Claims Tribunal. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE.ORDER DATED_23,Q6.2011 tu.y- B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 123 of 2011 APPLICANT Owner Sandeep Kumar VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS Smt. Sharda & others (APPLICATION FOR REVIEWOF ORDER DATED 23.06.2011 PASSED IN MA(C) No.1028 of 2008) DB: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal & Hon'ble Shri Ghulam Minhaiuddi n, J.J. BY CIRCULATION ORDER (Passed on 19.03.2012)

The matter is considered in chamber under the provisions of Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

By this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the award dated 23.06.2011, passed in MAC No. 1028 of 2008 \ (Sandeep Kumar v. Smt. Sharda and others).

4. One plea raised by the appellant was to the effect that the deceased Khileshwar himself was negligent in driving the the application preferred under motorcycle, and therefore, Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') is not maintainable. *Tn view of ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Itd., reported in 2004 (5) SCC 385, appetlant's-above plea was rejected by this court. The Second plea raised by the appellant was to the effect that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shockingly on higher side. The same was also rejected by this court after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. In view of admission of appellant, .the deceased was his employee (See para 10 of judgment of Tribunal). The Supreme Court in case of Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2009 (13) SCC 710, placing its reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, reported in 2008 (5) SCC 736, after observing deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motorbike, has held : Section 163-A cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Therefore, the deceased, being employee of the appellant, the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ningamma (Supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not applicable. In view of above, the plea raised by the review petitioners in the review petition is also devoid of merit.

The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 of CPC which permit a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records and/or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action" whrch is manifestly incorrect or on which two ?sv!Sb- 'SSis, t 'ssssy^ f vh.^fWSS^ S s%s' 'saa conclusions are not possibte. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. That is amply evident from the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

On perusal of the papers and documents appended thereto, there is no apparent error on the face of records. The review petitioner has not further brought into the notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner.

Principle law is well settled several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumah Choudhary , Lily Thomas, etc. vs. Union of India and others , Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others , Government of T.N. and others vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others and Kerla State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others .

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, there is no ground available for review of the order dated 23.06.2011. Under the garb of the review petition, the petitioners seek an opportunity to argue the entire case