IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Review Application No.49 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.3038 of 2019

1.Usharani

2.K.Kamalakannan

3.K.Raghuraman

4.Minor Abirami, D/o. Late Kothandam rep by Her natural guardian and mother Usharani

5.Nagamma ... Applicants Vs.

1.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd Party Claims Hub, Oriental House, No.212/215, Prakasam Salai, Broadway, Chennai – 600 108.

2.Sivaprasada Rao Karumanji ... Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII (1) read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 09.09.2020 made in C.M.A.No.3038 of 2019.

For Applicants : Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja For R1 : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For R2 : Set Ex-parte

O R D E R

The review application has been instituted to review order dated

09.09.2020 passed in C.M.A.No.3038 of 2019.

2. Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the review applicants would mainly contend that the correctness of the acknowledge card produced by the insurance company has not been tested by this Court. That apart, in paragraph 12 it has been mistakenly stated that the EX.R3 document it is an intimation notice to the Regional Transport Office (RTO). Ex.R4 is a document pertaining to cancellation of insurance policy. Wrong mentioning of the document in paragraph 12 of the order would not be a ground to review the entire decision already taken by this Court. However, Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 documents and its details are very much available in the order passed by the Tribunal, which was referred by this Court.

3. Regarding the acknowledgement, this Court has considered the facts and circumstances and made a finding that the acknowledgement card as well the cancellation of insurance policy issued by the insurance company cannot be disputed nor factual inference can be drawn, since the signature in the acknowledgement card has not been disputed by the 6^th respondent / owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal. Since the signature of the 6^th respondent in the acknowledgement card has been proved before the Tribunal, this Court considered the same and found that the insurance policy was cancelled prior to six months from the date of the accident.

4. However, such grounds raised on merits cannot be adjudicated in a review proceedings . The scope of review under Article XLVII (1) is limited and only in the event of an error apparent it can be corrected. Ground for an appeal cannot be considered as ground for a review application. However, this Court already granted liberty to the applicants to proceed against the owner of the vehicle seeking compensation.

5. That being the factum, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review application, since the applicants could not establish any error apparent for inference. Consequently, the review application stands dismissed. No costs.

10.04.2024 Jeni Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order To The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Party Claims Hub, Oriental House, No.212/215, Prakasam Salai, Broadway, Chennai – 600 108.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Jeni

10.04.2024