^. RVE yisiot(Bencl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEWPETITION No.- B3 /2011 (For M.A.C. 889/2009, For Final Order) APPLICANT APPELLANT ^E ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL, OFFICE, BILASPUR, C.G. Vrs. ;\ RESPONDENTS:- :- y ,2. ^^- ^- ^ 0 ^ ^c' w^ ;:-•'" ^/k ^'^~ z° ^ <;l... ./<<fey • ^^- 4. 5. SMT. RAMADEVI W/0 SUNILALIAS BALLU MISHRA, AGE 26 yrs. KU. AARUSHI D/0 SUNILALIAS BALLU MISHRA, AGE 6 MONTHS, _„„ 'v/j/o S^f^ff^ HCH/y^ n^ftff SMT. VIMLA DEVI -B/Q JSHWAR -PRASAJl^AGE ABOUT^YRS, CASTE- SHAHANI, ^ RESPONDENT N0.- 2, MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. RAMA DEVI W/0 SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS BALLU MISHRA, ALL RESIDENT, VILLAGE KARHI, THANA AND TEHSIL MUNGELI, DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.), DHANUSH PRASAD S/0 BANSHI LAL DUBEY, AGE 48 YRS., VEHICLE DRIVER, SARVMANGALA BUS NUMBER C.G. 10- G- 0170 RESIDENT MAGARPARA, SAMTA COLONY , BILASPUR, C.G. PREMPRAKASH LATH S/0 H.S.LATH, AGE 54 YRS., VEHICLE OWNER, SARVMANGALA BUS NUMBER C.G. 10- G- 0170, RESIDENT NIRALA NAGAR, BUS STAND, BILASPUR C.G. '"J ?rcITio^N UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 CPC 1908 .^. ^^ i j Y ^^€/^^ "^. ^v HIGILCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Review Petition No. 53 of 2011 Applicant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Smt. Ramadevi & others (Application for Review of the Judgment & Order dated 12th May, 2011 passedinM. A. (C) No. 1197/2010) DB: Hon?ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant/Insurance ( Company. ORDER (oral) (Passed on this 15th day ofSeptember, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J 1. Heard learncd counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. By this perition, the applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated 12.5.2011, passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1197 of 2010 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rarnadevi and others), whereby the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (present review applicant) was dismissed. 3. The instant review petition has been filed only in respect of fixing the rate of interest by the Claims Tribunal, which has not been interfered with by this Court. 4. The Tribunal below has imposed the interest @ 9% p.m. from the date of moving the claim petition til] the payment of award is made. The date of accident was 11.5.2009 and the claim petition was filed on 15.7.2009. The interest is always iinposed at prevailing the Bank rates, therefore, if 9% simple interest is ^m^^ ^ ^&. 6. ^ fixed by the Tribunal, we do not see any illegality therein. It may be noticed that the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was already rejected. The prayer and the grounds mentioned in the review petition and argued by learned counsel appear to be misconceived. The applicant has not pointed out any manifest error on the face of record and it has not brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the applicant. In view of the above this is not a fit case for review. The review petition is misconceived; the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- LM-Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur