The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an insurance company to obtain permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest proceedings on merits and the limitations on the insurance company's defense in the absence of such permission.

Heard Shri D.S. Patni, counsel for the review applicant.

2. Present review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment and order dated 16-7-2007. The review applicant has prayed to the following effect:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present review application and to review the judgment and order dated 16-7~2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court and to reduce the interest from 12% per annum to 7.5 per cent per annum, otherwise the appellant Insurance Company shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

3. Earlier the appeal was dismissed by me on 16-7-2007 on the ground that no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been obtained challenging the quantum of compensation as held in Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456. The Apex Court in Nicoletta Rohtagi's case has held as under:

"In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 140, it was held that an insurance company when impleaded as a party by the court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless this procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. In absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170, the insurance company was not entitled to an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation."

4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

was dismissed on 16-7-2007.

5. So far as the merit of the present review petition is concerned, it is well-settled that the review petition can be filed only for consideration of important matters or evidence which, by mistake or error on the face of the record could not be considered when the order was passed. A review petition cannot be filed for re-hearing of the entire matter by changing the counsel as well.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case MIS Northern India eateres (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1978) 4 see 36 has observed as under:

"It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle IS justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta15. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has . crept in earlier by judicial fallibility" : Sow Chandra Ka