The High Court · 2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR l.A.NO.4 0F 2025 IN M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1503 OF 2025 Between: National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by lt's Divisional lvlanager, TP Claim Hub, Jubilee Building, Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad. REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. Rathlavath Chandulal, S/o. Rathlavath Narya, 26 years, Rep by his Next Friend and Father, Rathlavath Narya, S/o Sukhya, 46 years, Agriculture Presently residing at H NO 16-3-342141A, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036. RESPONDENT No.1/RESPONDENT No.'l

2. Nirmala Kudumula, D/o Pasula Damodar Reddy, Major, Business, H.NO 19/58, Reddy Wada, Near BSNL Office, Kalwakurthy Town, Nagar Kurnool Dist. (Owner of Car NO TS 31 A 3628). RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT NO.2 Tandra Santhos Kumar, S/o. Tandra Raghuma Reddy, 39 Years, H.NO 3-9.1, Boinpally Village, Madljrl Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Drstrict- 509 357. (Driver of Car NO TS 31 A 3628). ...RESPONDENT No.3/ RESPONDENT No.3 Petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying that in the circumstances stated [\/emorandum of Ground the High Court may be pleased to allow the Review Petition by setting aside the dismissal order dated 19-11-2025 and Restore the appeal bearing M.A.C.M.A.No. 1503 of 2025 filed against the Judgment and decree dated 20-09- 2024 in M.V.O.P. No.'1011 of 2021 on the file of the Court o[ .he l\,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Xl Additional Chief Judge -Ct rr- City Civil Court, Hyderabad by passing the orders on merits Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Claimant:Sri. P. Chandr,r nouli The Court made the following: ORDER The applicant/Nationa I lnsurance Company Limited il s,urance (lompany') seeks a review of the judgment dated 19.11.2025 passed by ls Court Cismissing lV A C lt4.A.No 15O3 of 2025 filed by the lnsurance Company. The Insurance Company seeks revtew of the judgment ated 19 112025 oo the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the ftr, ord, since the Court dismissed the Appeal based on an Undertaking dated 31 ' (. 2025 given by the lnsurance Company to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cur Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad ('Tribunal'). Learned counsel appearing for the applica nUlnsu ra nce (: mpany narrates the facts leading to the Undertaking dated 31.10.2025 given by the nsurance Company to the Tribunal. According to counsel, the Undertaking dated :' 1O.2025 rvas given by an Officer of the lnsurance Company on being pressurize,l ry the Bailiff of the Tribunal, to give such an Undertaking. Counsel submits that tl e Tribunal sent the Bailiff to the Office of the lnsurance Company in relation to:l Execution petition filed by the respondent No.1/claimant. Counsel further submits rat the Undertaking dated 31 .'1 0.2025 was thereafter placed before the Tribunal or )3. 1 1 2025 and the concerned Officer, who gave the said Undertaking, attempted s, cide on 10. j1.2025 and subsequently passed away on 22.11.2025. Counsel submits that the Appeal should be reopened s r te the Undertaking dated 31.10.2025 was obtained by the Bailiff of the Tribunai ry pressur.izing the concerned Officer, which culminated in his suicide. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/clair rant seeks time to file a counter but submits that he has received no instructions in :l e matter. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the review applicanvlnsu rance Company. Undoubtedly, the suicide of the concerned Officer of the lnsurance Company is tragrc and unfortunate. However, the only question which arises for consideratron is: Whether the judgment dated 19. 1 1 .2025 is amenable to review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') ? Order XLVII Rule 1of the CPC requires existence of mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record for review of the judgment. The other two conditions for review, namely, discovery of new and important matter and for any other sufficient reason, are not relevant to the present case and have also not been argued on behalf of the applicant. What is relevant is that the Court dismissed the Appeal solely on the basis of the Undertaking dated 31 .10.2025, by which the appellan Ulnsu rance Company undertook to pay 100% of the awarded amount to the claimant. The Court was informed on 03.1 'l .2025 that the Undertaking had also been placed before the Tribunal by the parties on the same date i.e , on 03.11.2025, The Court, hence, directed that the undertaking be produced before the Court on the returnable date. On 19..1 1.2025, lhe Court deemed it fit to dismiss the Appeal on the basis of the said Undertaking- The Undertaking dated 31 .10.2025 was kept on record. Notably, the Undertaking dated 31.10.2025 was a fact in issue on 19.11.2025 and remains on record till date. There is no subsequent or intervening fact which would indicate any change in circumstances. ln any event, for the review of an order or judgment, there must be an error apparent on the face of the record. ln the present case, the Undertaking dated 31.10.2025, which formed the basis for dismissal of the Appeal by the judgment dated 19.1 1.2025, remains as a fact and an undisputed document till date. Rajender Kumar Vs. Rambhai ((2007) 15 SCC 513), in fact, is contrary to the case sought to be made out by the applicanUlnsu rance Company. The Supreme Court therein found that the concerned High Court had reviewed rts own order and ': .! reduced the compensation amount granted earlier by it with r rt considering whether the.iudgment sought to be reviewed suffered from any error : lparent on the face of the order and had entered into re-appreciation of the :,dence v/hereby the compensation was determrned. The Supreme court accord rgly held that the High Court's review order was unsustainable. sanjay Kumar Agatwar vs. slate rax officer ((2024) 2 ;cc 362) ouflines ilre cases where review of an order or ludgment may be consid: ed. paragraph 16 of the said decision lays down the general principles for exercise rf the power of review and emphasizes the limited purpose of a review petition whicl- cannot bc allowed to serve as 'an appeal in drsguise'. The cases cited on behalf of the appeflant do not app r to the present case since the unfortunate rncident of the concerned officer of t r applicant/lnsurance company does not and cannot amount to an error apparent or he face of the record in relation to the judgment dated I 9.1 .l .2025 passed by thts )ourt in the Appeat Although we refrain from commenting on the cause of surcidr: it is evrdent that the officer was subjected to enormous pressure by the applicanvrr* urance company. we do not have any hesitation to dismiss the Review r pprication in view of the above reasons. I A.No.4 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed SD/- A. SF EENIVASA REDDY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \/' iECTION OFFICER To 1 2 W,i, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Xl Additrcr rl Chief Judge _ Cum- City Civil Court, Hvderabad. One CC to Sri. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate tOpUC One CC to SRI Pallati Chandramouli, Advocate 1OeUCl Two CD Copies L .\ siq i C ,,-) A. O :tB ?$2[ 0 7 -.r' i -l HIGH COURT DATED: 0610112026 ORDER I.A.NO.4 0F 202s IN MACMA.No.1503 of 2025 ORDERING THE I.A. 4t, ?, 1t d-