ORDER : S.R BRAHMBHATT, J. The present application is taken-out by the applicants, who happened to be the original appellants in First Appeal No. 4849 of 2008 seeking review of the order, which was rendered by this Court on 10th December 2015. The review is preferred on 15th June 2015, which contains the following prayers. (a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application. (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to delete the amount of Rs. 3,24,600/- mentioned in para - 13 of the judgment shown in heading less: Negligence 20% by retaining the amount of Rs. 7,63,400/- in the interest of justice. (c) Be pleased to dispense with the filing of the affidavit, as the same is orally ordered by this Hon'ble Court (Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R Brahmbhatt & Hon'ble Mr. Kogje, JJ.) while hearing the MCA No. 1081 of 2016 of the Insurance Company. (d) Be pleased to condone the delay if any in filing the aforesaid Miscellaneous Civil Application. (e) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and necessary looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the applicants and the original appellants happens to be the heirs of pillion rider of the motorcycle and therefore, they could not have been made to suffer on account of the error, omission and negligence on the part of the motorcyclist, as the applicants relation who died in the accident happened to be the pillion rider and as such, h is heirs could not have been made to suffer on account of error and negligence on the part of the motorcyclist, who was riding the motorcycle. 3. It was further contended that the tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that the present applicants - original claimants before the tribunal were not required to join. The insurance company of the motorcycle and the insurance company of the truck happen to be same. Unfortunately, these facts have not been articulately mentioned anywhere in the appeal memo, but that may not be treated as an impediment in the way of the present application in claiming the entire amount without deduction on account of the 20% negligence on the part of the driver as decided by the tribunal. 4. Unfortunately, these facts have not been articulately mentioned anywhere in the appeal memo, but that may not be treated as an impediment in the way of the present application in claiming the entire amount without deduction on account of the 20% negligence on the part of the driver as decided by the tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company resisted this application and submitted that the entire application is nothing but an afterthought, as this argument had never been canvassed anywhere much less in the appeal proceedings. The original proceedings before the tribunal, where the tribunal rendered its decision containing final order, as could be seen from the observations in paragraph no. 12 in respect of the M.A.C.P No. 730 of 2004, which records unequivocal finding that in the accident two motor vehicles have been involved i.e. motorcycle and truck. The applicants/claimants in that M.A.C.P No. 730 of 2004, who happens to be the heirs of the pillion rider had not chosen to join either the heirs of the motorcyclist or the insurer of the motorcycle and as the liability of the motorcyclist is also determined, their determination of compensation was based upon the deduction of 30% only. 5. This 30% only came to be reduced to 20% and therefore, now by way of this review application, it is not open to the applicants to seek rehearing of entire matter under the guise of review. 6. We heard the learned advocates for the parties and are of the considered view that the learned advocate for the insurance company is justified in contending that there was no such pleading or arguments canvassed and when the insurance company brought in application for rectification of the arithmetic mistake, the other side brought an application in the form of review, seeking rehearing on the point, which had never been canvassed. As had there been the point, the same would have at least figured in the memo of the appeal, which is conspicuously silent on this point. The tribunal's order and observations were not disturbed and impugned order only examined qua shifting of liabilities, quantum etc. The liability of the motorcyclist, which was said to have been fixed at 30% was reduced to 20%. In other words, 20% deduction in the compensation was required to be effected instead of 30% and with this modification, the appeals were disposed of. 7. The liability of the motorcyclist, which was said to have been fixed at 30% was reduced to 20%. In other words, 20% deduction in the compensation was required to be effected instead of 30% and with this modification, the appeals were disposed of. 7. In that scenario, we are of the considered view that the present application if is entertained, then it would amount to permitting the hearing afresh on new points, which would not be permissible in light of the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., v. Collector, District Gwalior, reported in A.I.R 2013 Supreme Court 3669 and the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, reported in A.I.R 1987 Supreme Court 943. 8. We therefore, are of the view that the present application being merit less deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicants, urged the Court that let there be some direction to the insurance company to deposit the amount as early as possible. Apropos that submission, Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the insurance company submitted that the amount would be deposited as soon as possible and latest within the period of 4 weeks from today.