IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review No. 2 of 2009. Judgment reserved on 31.8.2009. Date of decision September 7, 2009. Shri Amit Kumar Mandla ….Petitioner. Versus Smt. Bajro Devi and others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For respondent No. 4 Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This review petition has been preferred under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) against the judgment of this Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the review petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba. Undisputedly, FAO 188 of 2007, titled Amit Kumar Mandla v. Smt. Bajro Devi 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - and others arising out of the same accident was instituted in this Court which was allowed on the ground that the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal was in violation of the provisions of Order 23 of the Code. The case was thereafter remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. On the evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided the case afresh and quantified the claim at Rs.4,08,666/-. On remand, the Court heard the case again and the impugned award was made against the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment of this Court affirming the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court for review, basically on the ground that under Issue No. 4, learned Tribunal had held that the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the conditions of the Insurance Policy and liability was fixed on the appellant. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that both RW-2 Shri Om Parkash and RW-3 Shri Pradeep Chand have supported the case of the appellant herein. The findings of the Tribunal were not correct and that no liability can be fastened on the appellant. This aspect was - 3 - considered in appeal by me wherein I have held that while considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal had come to the correct conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urges that conclusion is incorrect. It is by now well settled that an erroneous decision on facts and law is appealable and cannot be agitated and reagitated in review proceedings. I find no ground under Order 47 of the Code to interfere with the judgment and order passed by this Court. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. September 7, 2009(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.