Civil Revision No.5816 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5816 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited .....Petitioner v. Taranjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 26.5.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal') vide which request of petitioner-Insurance Company to dismiss the claim petition filed by respondent no.1-claimant merely on the ground that earlier petition filed by the claimant was dismissed as withdrawn, was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent no.1-claimant sustained injuries in the accident which had taken place on 10.11.2006, involving vehicle TATA 207 bearing registration No.PB-08-J-0040 (Temp) bring driven by respondent no.2 in a Civil Revision No.5816 of 2011(O&M) -2- rash and negligent manner. Earlier also he had filed a claim petition, which was not decided on merit and rather the same was got dismissed as withdrawn. He filed another petition. However, request was made on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company that he had not sought any permission of the Court to file another petition on the same cause of action and the second petition is not maintainable. It has been rightly observed by learned Tribunal that strict rules of procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the claim petitions filed under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Earlier petition was admittedly not decided on merit. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Civil Revision No.5816 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 22.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge