IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.104 of 2010 SMT. RAJMATI DEVI & ANR. Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS. ----------- O R D E R 09. 09.03.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Upendra Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh on behalf of the opposite-party, United India Insurance Company Ltd, in admission matter. (2) The petitioner has filed this review application for review of Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2010 passed by me in M.A. No.513 of 2005. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased was not sitting on the truck rather he was standing by the side of the road and the witnesses have stated this fact but the said fact has not been considered and it has wrongly been held that the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. (4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party-Insurance Company submitted that this review application is not maintainable as none of the grounds raised by the petitioner is within the purview of order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel on the same set of facts, review is not maintainable. (5) It appears that claimant-opposite party filed claim case No.40 of 2000 claiming compensation on account of death of Md. Akbar who died on 05.05.2000 in motor accident. 2 After considering the materials available on record, the learned trial Court allowed the claim application and it was held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the aforesaid compensation amount. The insurance company filed Misc. Appeal No.513 of 2005. By terms of order dated 26.03.2010 at the stage of admission itself after hearing the parties, the Misc. appeal was allowed. It has been held that since the deceased Md. Akbar was sitting on the top of the truck at the time of accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. (6) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses have stated that the deceased was standing by the side of the road. From perusal of the Judgment passed by the accident claim tribunal, it appears that it was the consistent case of the claimant-opposite party that the deceased Md. Akbar was sitting on the top of the truck vide paragraph 2 and 5 of the Judgment. There was no contrary evidence and, therefore, the Insurance Company filed the Misc. Appeal before this Court taking the plea that the liability of the insurance company was extended only to the owner and / or the representative of the owner of goods in vehicle after amendment in the year 1994. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner are raising new grounds and new facts which is not borne out of the record. From perusal of the order passed by me, it appears that only point raised before this Court by the petitioner is that since the matter 3 proceeded ex-parte against them, the matter may be remanded back to the Court below. (7) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner are trying to introduce a new fact which cannot be the ground for review. It is settled principle of law that jurisdiction of review are not a part of appellate jurisdiction and, therefore, have to be strictly confined to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. (8) Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this review application and accordingly it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)