JUDGMENT : Jayant M. Patel, J. Leave to delete Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 since they were not the parties to prefer the review application, and in any case, if the order below review application is set aside, they would be benefited. Permission granted. 2. The present petition is directed against order dated 10.02.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below Review Application No. 6 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal has exercised the review power and has exonerated the Respondent-insurance company from his liability to pay the compensation. 3. The relevant facts are that, on 08.07.1993, deceased Jayantilal was travelling in the carrier rickshaw being RTO No. GJ 11 T 8337 with his goods, and at that time, the driver of the rickshaw lost the control and it resulted into the accident. Deceased sustained injuries and then he succumbed to the injuries. It gave rise to the claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 549 of 1993 for compensation of Rs.3 lacs. Tribunal, at the conclusion of the petition, awarded compensation at Rs.2,20,000/- o the dependents, members of the family of the deceased, with the interest @ 7.5%. The aforesaid judgment came to be passed on 30.11.2005. 4. The pertinent aspect is that the insurance company was held liable but it did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal. However, the insurance company preferred review application before the Tribunal after a period of nine months from the expiry of the period of limitation. Since there was delay, the application for condonation of delay was also made. The Tribunal condoned the delay, and thereafter, has exercised the review power by the impugned order wherein the Tribunal has recorded a fresh finding of fact on the basis of the statement made in the cross-examination of the witness and has found that the deceased was not travelling in the rickshaw alongwith his goods, and thereafter, has exonerated the insurance company from the liability by allowing the review application. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. Nayan Parekh for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Parikh for the Respondent. 6. Before we further consider the aspects on merits, we may record that initially the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. Nayan Parekh for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Parikh for the Respondent. 6. Before we further consider the aspects on merits, we may record that initially the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela) as per the roster, and on 24.06.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order: The Petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge order dated 10.02.2010 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh, whereby entertaining a review application, the original judgment of the same Tribunal has been materially altered to the prejudice to the Petitioner. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the limited powers conferred upon the Claims Tribunal by the provisions of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not permit such review in the nature of appeal by the same Claims Tribunal. The impugned order is challenged on few other grounds as well. The main contesting Respondent and beneficiary of the impugned order i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed a reply affidavit and mainly relied upon observations of Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No. 7531 of 2006 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lilaben Rajendrakumar Rathva and Ors. Learned Counsel appearing on both sides admitted that there is no final and binding pronouncement on the important issue of maintainability and scope of a review application after the Claims Tribunal disposes of a claim case, particularly in view of expressly limited powers of the civil court having been conferred upon the claims tribunal established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary in the interest of justice that the petition should be placed, for hearing and appropriate interim or final orders, before a Division Bench of this Court. Office may place this order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order as may be deemed proper. Therefore, the present matter come up before us. 7. Two aspects are worth recording. One is that, it is an admitted position that another claim petition had also arisen being M.A.C.P No. 527 of 1993, wherein also the award was passed by the Tribunal for payment of compensation and the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the present matter come up before us. 7. Two aspects are worth recording. One is that, it is an admitted position that another claim petition had also arisen being M.A.C.P No. 527 of 1993, wherein also the award was passed by the Tribunal for payment of compensation and the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation. Against the said award, another review application was preferred by the insurance company before the Tribunal being Review Application No. 5 of 2006 whereas the present Review Application No. 6 of 2006 was preferred in respect of the award passed in favour of the Petitioners arose from the very accident. However, Review Application No. 5 of 2006 against the award passed in Claim Petition No. 527 of 1993 came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that when the Tribunal has already held the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation, the applicant-insurer cannot be exonerated from the liability to indemnify the insured and it was found by the Tribunal that there was no need to review award passed by the Tribunal and ultimately review application was dismissed vide award dated 10.02.2010. However, the very Tribunal, in Review Application No. 6 of 2006, which is subject-matter of the present petition, exercised the power of review and took a different stand for exonerating the insurance company. We may also record that as per the Respondents, order passed by the Tribunal below Review Application No. 5 of 2006 was carried before this Court in the proceedings of First Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the amount involved in the appeal is less than Rs.25,000/- and therefore, on the ground of smallness of amount, the appeal was not entertained. The insurance company, thereafter, has not carried the matter before the Apex Court. Second aspect, which deserves to be recorded, is that the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal below Review Application No. 6 of 2006, which is impugned in the present petition, shows that the Tribunal has recorded fresh findings of fact and has exercised the power of review and not the error of law corrected by the Tribunal. 8. The aforesaid results into two position. 8. The aforesaid results into two position. One is that, if the question of consistency in the orders of the Tribunal was to be maintained, it was required for the Tribunal to take a common view. On question of the liability of the insurance company in two claim petitions from the very accident, it was not open to the Tribunal to take two different views, one for exonerating the insurance company and another for holding the insurance company liable. Second is that Tribunal could not have exercised the power for examining questions of fact by considering the contents for deposition of the party and thereafter exonerated the insurance company by allowing the review application. If such power is read, under review for appreciation of the same evidence again and to record a fresh finding of fact, the purpose of appellate jurisdiction would be frustrated and sanctity of the order of the Tribunal itself also would be lost. 9. If the matter is considered in view of the aforesaid observation read with decision of this Court in Civil Application (For Stay) No. 7531 of 2006 dated 05.07.2006 in case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Lilaben Rajendrakumar Rathva and Ors., copy whereof is produced at Annexure R-V, and upon which reliance was placed by the Respondent-insurance company before the learned Single Judge of this Court, then also we find that impugned order passed by the Tribunal below the review application cannot be sustained. In the said decision, this Court recorded the availability of power of review only on two circumstances. One the procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside palpable erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it, and second, a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has not exercised the review power in the impugned order on any of the aforesaid ground but has appreciated the evidence by considering the statement made in the cross-examination and a fresh finding of fact is recorded, and thereafter, the insurance company has been exonerated. Hence, we find that the Tribunal, while exercising the review power, travelled beyond its review jurisdiction. Hence, we find that the Tribunal, while exercising the review power, travelled beyond its review jurisdiction. The reference may be made to the decision of this Court in case of Kusumben N. Patel v. Swami Gunatitnagar Co.op Housing Society Ltd. wherein, the question arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J., one of us) reported in 2008 (2) GLH 123 that once the Tribunal had recorded the finding, it could not be upset in review jurisdiction even in a case where a decision of the higher court was considered. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order passed by the Tribunal, below review application which is impugned in the present petition, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below Review Application No. 6 of 2006 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the Review Application No. 6 of 2006 shall be considered afresh by the Tribunal in accordance with law and the Tribunal shall decide the same as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that it would be a fit case to award the cost to the Petitioner since the exercise of the power by the Tribunal is beyond jurisdiction and also in contradiction to the view taken in the other matter, and therefore, the Petitioner is dragged for the present litigation by the insurance company. Hence, we find that the Respondent-company shall pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- of the Petitioner towards cost of the present litigation. Cost shall be paid within four weeks. The matter shall be heard by the Tribunal thereafter. It would be open to the insurance company to deposit the amount of cost with the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.