JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that in the cause title of MACP No. 142/2006, the applicant had been shown as insurance company of both the vehicles i.e. car no. GJ-14040 and truck no. GTX 3404. In view of the evidence on record, the present applicant is the insurance company of car no. GJ-14040. United India Insurance Company Ltd. had been made party respondent as insurance company of truck and inadvertently, this fact at the relevant time had not come to the notice. The judgment and award was passed wherein truck no. GTX 3404 was made solely liable and therefore, respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 were made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2. Mr. Shelat submitted that as soon as the claimant came to know about the error, they had moved a review petition before the Tribunal which was numbered as MACP Review Application no. 4/17 praying for substituting respondent no. 5 as New India Assurance Company Limited, Amul Dairy Road, P.K. Chambers, Taluka District Anand referring to policy no. 31/110600/31781/32919 with the validity period from 16.1.1998 to 13.3.1998 in connection with truck no. GTX 3404. The same came to be rejected on 20.1.2020 observing that the Tribunal has not committed any error or mistake in the title of the claim petition and therefore, there was no clerical error or mistake. The learned Tribunal observed that the correction in the judgment and award could be made only as per Section 152 of CPC and not by way of any review application, thus the review application came to be dismissed. 3. Mr. Shelat stated that thereafter, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. moved MACP Review Application no. 2/22 under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of CPC praying that since there was no insurance policy of the truck with respondent no. 5 to exonerate respondent no. 5 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. and in place to add New India Assurance Company Limited as party respondent no. 5. 4. Mr. Shelat submitted that the MACP Review Application no. 2/22 was dismissed since MACP Review Application no. 4/17 came to be dismissed. Advocate Mr. 5 to exonerate respondent no. 5 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. and in place to add New India Assurance Company Limited as party respondent no. 5. 4. Mr. Shelat submitted that the MACP Review Application no. 2/22 was dismissed since MACP Review Application no. 4/17 came to be dismissed. Advocate Mr. Shelat stated that MACMA No. 674/20 had been filed with a prayer to join the party, and the said application had been rejected observing in Paragraph 5 as under: “The present New India Assurance Company Limited was not joined as a necessary party, the claim was already decided before more than 3 years and one review petition was also filed which was rejected. The present applicant wants to file this application was also in delay, hence the delay application was pending for hearing and in this present delay application, present applicant has prayed for joining the New India Assurance Company Limited as a party of that proceeding but considering the facts and circumstances and objection of the other side, the proposed party is not a necessary party, no adjudication is pending when the matter is already decided by the Tribunal on merits.” 5. As per record the claimant had already brought this fact to the notice of the Tribunal by moving MACP Review Application no. 4/17. The error in the cause title may have been caused since the insurance company of the car is United India Insurance Company Ltd. It appears that the policy of the truck was not produced on record at the relevant time, MACP came to be decided laying down sole negligence of the driver of truck and the Tribunal in the judgment by allowing the claim petition had made claimant entitled to recover the compensation of Rs. 2,21,476/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization along with the proportionate cost from the opponents no. 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally. 6. It appears that the claimant, as well as the insurance company - present applicant after the award would have realized that there was no policy in force in connection with the truck with United India Insurance Company Ltd., and while preferring the MACP Review Application no. 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally. 6. It appears that the claimant, as well as the insurance company - present applicant after the award would have realized that there was no policy in force in connection with the truck with United India Insurance Company Ltd., and while preferring the MACP Review Application no. 4/17, the claimant had produced a copy of the policy of the truck which appears to be issued by New India Assurance Company Limited, which shows that the policy of New India Assurance Company Limited was in force from 16.1.1998 to 13.3.1998 and the date of the accident as per the judgment reflects 12.3.1998. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited and when the said fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal was required to issue notice to New India Assurance Company Limited in MACP Review Application No. 4/17 filed by the claimant. As per the record, the present applicant too had moved the Tribunal under review application and had brought the said fact to the notice of the Tribunal making a prayer of joining New India Assurance Company Limited. The Tribunal could have allowed the same and should have given the liberty to all the parties concerned to lead relevant facts with the evidence so that none could have been prejudiced. 7. Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is reproduced herein-below: “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 which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. 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 applied 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.” 8. The provision under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC deals with the power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of law. Aggrieved by any decree or order, from which an appeal is allowed but when no appeal has been preferred or in case no appeal is allowed, and 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 against him, may apply for a review of the judgment of the Court which had passed the decree or made the order. 9. In case of Board of Control for Cricket, India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, AIR 2005 SC 592 , it has been observed in Paragraphs 88 to 90 as under: “Section 114 of the Code empowers a court to review its order if the conditions precedents laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provision of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court except those which are expressly provided in S.114 of the Code in terms whereof it is empowered to make such order as it thinks fit. Order 47, R.1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. The substantive provision of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court except those which are expressly provided in S.114 of the Code in terms whereof it is empowered to make such order as it thinks fit. Order 47, R.1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words ‘sufficient reason’ in O.47, R.1 of the Code 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.” 10. Here in this case, the claimant as well as the insurance company, both had moved the Tribunal, bringing to notice that the respondent no. 5, present applicant, arraigned as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Mayfair Road, Opp. Union Bank, Anand was not the actual insurance company of the truck bearing registration no. GTX 3404. While moving MACP Review Application no. 4/17, the claimant referred New India Assurance Company Limited, as the insurance company having issued the policy as well as referring the validity period. A copy of the insurance policy was also attached with the application. The Tribunal referring to Section 152 of CPC rejected the application, observing that the correction in the judgment and decree can be made only as per Section 152 of the CPC and not by filing any review application and had observed that there was no error or mistake made by the Tribunal while passing the judgment and decree in MACP No. 142/06. 11. 11. In MACMA No. 674/20, the present applicant had urged the Court to join New India Assurance Company Limited as party, the said application was rejected, observing that New India Assurance Company Limited was not joined as a necessary party and the claim had already been decided more than 3 years ago and one review petition filed was also rejected, thus the applicant was found to be in delay in the hearing of the delay application pending, wherein the prayer was made for joining New India Assurance Company Limited as party to the proceedings. The Court in the order passed in MACMA No. 674/20 did not find proposed party New India Assurance Company Limited as necessary party and no adjudication was found pending since already decided by the Tribunal on merits. 12. It is pertinent to note that the facts were made clear on record by the claimant as well as the present applicant as United India Insurance Company Ltd., the sole negligence of the truck was laid down, subsequently, the insurance policy in force was brought to the notice of the Court which was issued by New India Assurance Company Limited. The Tribunal on the basis of doctrine of fairness and good faith, by exercising the review power provided in CPC which makes it explicitly clear to be invoked, in case where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, the error sought to be amended was necessarily to be acted upon. The Tribunal ought to have entertained the same. 13. Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC would be maintainable not only upon discovery of new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. The Tribunal could very well discern from the evidence put by way of copy of the policy with the review application by the claimant and thereafter by the present applicant, that it would be the liability of the New India Assurance Company Limited to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal was required to exercise the power of review. Doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ means that the act of the Court harms no one. The Tribunal was required to exercise the power of review. Doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ means that the act of the Court harms no one. The Tribunal following the doctrine, should have entertained the application of the claimant as well as the present applicant as the insurance company. The power of review is not an inherent power. It is conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed, but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist, and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. The Tribunal thus should have corrected the record to avoid injustice. 14. In the result, the order dated 14.11.2022 passed in MACP Review Application No. 2/22 is quashed and set aside and MACP No. 142/06 be restored on the file of the Tribunal. The present applicant stands exonerated. The claimants are permitted to substitute respondent no. 5 in the cause title as New India Assurance Company Limited as being shown in MACP Review Application no. 4/17 for truck no. GTX 3404. The insurance company being New India Assurance Company Limited, P.K. Chambers, Amul Dairy Road, District Anand with the policy no. 31/110600/31781/32919 with the validity period from 16.1.1998 to 13.3.1998. MACP be decided within a period of three months. It is directed that the issue which requires to be decided is only in connection with the liability of New India Assurance Company Limited. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.