K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in I.A. No. 1284 of 2005 in M.C.O.P. No. 805 of 2004, whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to review the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 805 of 2004 dated 06.12.2004.

2. The petitioner herein is the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 805 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. The said O.P. was filed by the respondents herein seeking for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs due to the death of one Anandan. The claimants are his wife, children and parents. The said O.P. was contested by the petitioner herein and after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal passed an award, whereby the respondents therein were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,99,600/- to the claimants along with cost and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 1284 of 2005 under Order 47, Rule 3 CPC seeking to review the said award by raising various grounds. The Court below rejected the said application by specifically observing that the grounds raised in the said application do not warrant consideration for review and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, they could very well file an appeal before the appropriate forum challenging the said award. Accordingly, the Court below has rejected the application. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has erred in passing the award without considering the fact that there was no valid insurance available at the time of accident. It is also submitted by him that the grounds raised in the review have not been considered by the Court below. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 832 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Arcot Woodlands Building, No.1, Bharathi Road, Cuddalore-1 v. S. Sivapathi and 7 others.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the grounds raised in the application by the petitioner herein do not satisfy the requirement under Order 47, Rule 3 CPC and therefore the petition was rightly rejected by the Court below.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the order passed by the Court below and the connected papers placed in the typed set of papers.

6. The Court below, in its order, has extracted the grounds of review which are as follows:

(a) The claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding Insurance.

(b) The first respondent has colluded with the claimants and so he remain ex parte.

(c) No petition has been filed under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act.

(d) The tribunal failed to call for records from the Insurance Company and passed award without considering the denial of insurance.

(e) There was no valid insurance.

7. A bare perusal of those grounds would only indicate that those are all not grounds for review for exercising the power under Order 47, Rule 3 CPC. It is seen that those grounds were raised by the petitioner by disputing the correctness or otherwise of the award passed by the Court below on merits. No doubt one of the grounds raised is that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that there was no valid insurance and therefore the award passed was not valid. It is well settled that the scope of review under Order 47, Rule 3 CPC is very limited and cannot be invoked by the parties for re-appraisal of the entire facts, circumstances and the evidence let in by the parties. A finding on facts rendered by the Court, if appears to be erroneous in the view of the party, it is for him to challenge the same by filing only an appeal by raising such of those grounds available. Certainly the review is not a