JUDGMENT : SINDHU SHARMA, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Company seeks a review of the judgment dated 19.05.2020 passed in CIMA No. 157/2018 titled 'Amit Choudhary and others V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others' read with Section 152 of the CPC. 2. The Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal Jammu, decided the claim petition of Amit Choudhary under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed against Oriental Insurance Company, owner and driver vide award dated 25.01.2017. Both the claimant as well as Insurance Company aggrieved of the award dated 25.01.2017, filed their appeal against the same. These two appeals, CIMA No. 157/2020 titled 'Amit Choudhary and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others', and CIMA No. 96/2017 titled 'Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v/s Amit Choudhary and others' were heard and decided by a common judgment on 19.05.2020. 3. The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as claimant) sought enhancement of the award in his favour, whereas the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company) sought dismissal of the claim petition. The appeal filed by the claimant was allowed by the impugned judgment and the awarded amount was enhanced from Rs. 9,42,252/- to Rs. 21.94 lac alongwith interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal and the appeal of the Insurance Company was dismissed. 4. The Insurance Company has sought the review of the judgment dated 19.05.2020 enhancing the awarded amount on the ground that though the Tribunal had stepped the income of the claimant by 50% on account of Future Prospects but vide the order impugned the same has been stepped up by 100%, thus, this error has occurred on the face of record and is required to be rectified. It is also averred that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal i.e. 10% has been upheld, though the same should have been as 7% or 7.5% as per rate on fixed deposit by the nationalized Bank. 5. The grounds on which review is sought and contention raised are to be considered keeping in view the scope of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC which reads as under:- "1. 5. The grounds on which review is sought and contention raised are to be considered keeping in view the scope of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC which reads as under:- "1. Application for review of judgment" (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order..." 6. The scope of review as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 is very limited and review must be confined strictly to the grounds enumerated in the aforesaid order. An application for review would, thus, lie only if there is an error apparent on the face of records or any other sufficient reason and permitting the same would cause failure of justice. There cannot be rehearing of the appeal, re-appraisal of findings, evidence of record or finding out error would amount to invoking of appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible as the review court does not sit in appeal. 7. The appeal of claimant was allowed while relying on the judgment 'Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar', (2011) 1 SCC 343 and 'Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance', (2010) 10 SCC 254 and against the permanent disability of 50% the same was stepped up by 100% which is against the law laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati', (2013) 8 SCC 320 while observing the review proceeds have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 11 has summarised the principles as under:- "Summary of the principles 20. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati', (2013) 8 SCC 320 while observing the review proceeds have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 11 has summarised the principles as under:- "Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112 ] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [ AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 ] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [ (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 9. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 9. The admitted position is that as a result of accident, the claimant had suffered brain damage and has lost complete control and command of his one side of body is barely able to speak or attend his daily routine and requires medical treatment throughout his life. The claim petition as well as the appeal has been filed by the claimant through his next friend i.e., his father in fact he was not even in a position to file and the same was not opposed by the company. Though the disability of the claimant was 50% but the Loss of Earning capacity was 100%. 10. It is settled law that just compensation should include all elements to place the victim in and as near a position he was or she is before the occurrence of the accident to compensate the victim of a serious accident assures to the victim who survive. The claim would be in lifetime earning loss, the claimant would not be able to earn his own livelihood, the same thus has to be considered in view of the facts and circumstances of the each case. Thus, in view of the settled law of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Raj Kumar & another', 2011 (1) SCC 343 in para 10 it has been held that if the permanent disability made to the extent of 50% to loss of earning capacity will be 100%. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to provide just compensate, addition was made. 11. The Insurance Company had raised all these arguments while opposing the appeal of the claimant seeking enhancement of amount on account of loss of future earning as 100% in view of his physical and mental condition. The law is well settled that review cannot be disguised as an appeal. 11. The Insurance Company had raised all these arguments while opposing the appeal of the claimant seeking enhancement of amount on account of loss of future earning as 100% in view of his physical and mental condition. The law is well settled that review cannot be disguised as an appeal. In Parsion Devi and others V. Sumitri Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 715 , it was held as under: "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 12. Similarly, in 'M/s Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Com. Ltd.', AIR SCW 2006, 3592, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that: "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases." 13. All these arguments have already been raised by the Insurance Company while arguing the appeal of the claimant. The Insurance Company by way of the present review petition is only seeking re-appreciation of argument and rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible. 14. All these arguments have already been raised by the Insurance Company while arguing the appeal of the claimant. The Insurance Company by way of the present review petition is only seeking re-appreciation of argument and rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, accordingly, alongwith connected application(s).