IMPORTANT POINT
The power of review is strictly limited to specific grounds, and a mere disagreement with the previous judgment does not constitute a valid basis for review.

JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company.

2. The factual matrix leading to this review petition is that the petitioners filed a claim petition for compensation under the MV Act of 1988 before the MACT, Nalbari vide MAC case No. 20 (death)/2016 on account of the death of the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 and 3, arising out of a motor vehicle accident on 21/08/2013. Vide Judgment/order dated 29/06/2018, the said case was disposed of awarding compensation of Rs.4,66,000/- directed to be paid by the respondent no. 2 and 3 i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 29/06/2018, the present petitioners filed an appeal vide MAC Appeal no. 937/2018 before this court seeking enhancement of the awarded amount as well as shifting of the liabilities to the insurance company i.e., the respondent no. 1 as because at the relevant time of accident the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court delivered the Judgment on 05/08/2022 dismissing the said appeal as well as set aside the Judgment and order passed by the learned MACT, Nalbari. Hence, this review petition.

4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that while passing the impugned Judgment and order dated 05/08/2022 in MAC Appeal no. 937/2018, this court has committed error apparent on the face of the record regarding the issues involved in the MAC appeal and as such the same is liable to be reviewed by this court.

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the petitioner had preferred the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal and to shift the liabilities to pay the compensation towards the insurance company as well. The respondent has not preferred any counter appeal to set aside and quash the Judgment and order of the learned tribunal. Therefore, without pleading or any grievance of the respondent side this court cannot mechanically reverse the Judgment of the tribunal which was passed after proper assessment of the materials on record. As such the impugned Judgment dated 05/08/2022 passed by this court is liable to be reviewed.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in case of motor accident, the evidence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but on preponderance of probabilities and the same is also established in the instant case. However, this court has insisted on the standard of proof of facts of the case instead of considering the fact that MV Act is a beneficial legislation and the court should be given much more weightage to the evidence given by the claimant in its true sense than rejecting the appeal on technical grounds.

7. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case law –

(2011) 14 SCC 639 (Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another)

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the grounds taken by the petitioner to file a review petition are in fact the grounds of appeal. Review is not permissible here in this case. A review of a Judgment and Order is permissible where a glaring omission or a patent mistake or grave error has been crept in because of judicial fallibility. Hence, the learned counsel for the insurance company prays for dismissal of the review petition.

9. It is a settled position of law that review by a court of its order is not possible except on three prescribed grounds namely –

a. Discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree or order was passed.

b. Mistake or