Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 584 (MP)

Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan v. Punjab Singh Baghel

2021-08-03

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this review petition under Order 47 rule 1 of CPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1038/2017 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan & others). 2. The facts of the case in short are that respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed a miscellaneous appeal before this Court taking an exception to the order dated 18.7.2017 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior, in Claim Case No.1800187/2016, by which the Claims Tribunal had held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.16,88,000/- along with interest and liability as to pay aforesaid amount of compensation has been fastened on the respondents. This Court has partly allowed aforesaid M.A. No.1038/2017 vide judgment dated 29.4.2021 and reduced the total compensation from Rs.16,88,000/- to Rs.16,30,200/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that crossobjection filed by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by this Court while passing judgment dated 29.4.2021. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has also ignored the important factual aspect as well as the settled principle of law while passing the impugned award. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow this petition by reviewing the judgment dated 29.4.2021 passed in M.A. No.1038/2017 taking into consideration the cross-objection filed by the petitioner. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that there is no error on the face of the record and, therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned judgment. 6. Order 47 rule 1 CPC reads as under :-- "47. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that there is no error on the face of the record and, therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned judgment. 6. Order 47 rule 1 CPC reads as under :-- "47. 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 which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on 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. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation-- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.” 7. The explanation of Order 47 rule 1, sub-rule (2) CPC says the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 8. The explanation of Order 47 rule 1, sub-rule (2) CPC says the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 8. In Board of Control of Cricket India v. Netaji Cricket Club [( AIR 2005 SC 592 )], it is observed that “the words “sufficient reason” occurring in rule 1 is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'”. Similarly, in Union of India v. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., ( AIR 2008 (Gau) 161 , it is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the review petition is limited the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Apex Court held that scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held that an erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each decision. 9. The scope of compass of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is circumscribed by section 114 of the Code which provides that a review of an order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter of evidence. But in the present case no new and important matter has been brought before the Court by the petitioner. It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such errors must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin point those errors. ( See Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1995 Cal 316 ). 10. It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such errors must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin point those errors. ( See Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1995 Cal 316 ). 10. In the light of above citations, it is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. There is no error apparent on the face of record. This Court has already considered all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The point raised in cross-objection had also been considered in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court with regard to amount of compensation. It is also well settled that the provisions made under Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation shall be restricted to the compensation only. These provisions are required to be considered carefully by the Court while considering the loss occurred due to accident. 11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, no case for reviewing the order dated 29.4.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1038/2017 is made out. Consequently, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.