IMPORTANT POINT
The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is strictly limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and a review cannot serve as a means to reargue or reassess the merits of a case.

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. 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 a