M^ ^-,.'y H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiio Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. PeSitioner Writ Petition fC) No. 6112/2007 Bajaj Aliianz General insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhars Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) (Snsurer) ¥- Versys 1. Santoshi Yadav, W/o Late Shri Manoj Kumar, aged about 20 years; 2. Guiashan Kumar S/o Late Shri Mano] Kumar, aged about 01 year, minor represented through natura! guardian mother Smt. Santoshi Yadav; 3. Dhansai Yadav, S/o Visambhar Yadav, aged about 45 years; 4. Gauri Bai Yadav, W/o Dhansai Yadav, aged about 43 yeare, Aii R/o Viilage-Kosamkhunta, Post- Ganod, Thana- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Ciaimants) 5. Narottam Sinha, S/o Kamta Prasad Sinha, R/o Viilage ~ Bhansoj, Thana • Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver) 6. Parasram Sinha, S/o Not known, R/o Viilage - Bhansoj, Thana - Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) Writ Petition UnderArtic!e22?ofConstifytionpf|ndia Presgnt : Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsei for the petitioner Shri S. Pandya, counse! for respondents No. 1,3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30 October, 2007) 'Heard on admission. ,j-!^K >:. ^ ^- 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16-08-2007 passed by VIIth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "ths MACT") in Ciaim M.J.C. No. 59/2007 whereby the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. for review of the order awarding compensation against the petitioner while giving a right to recover from the owner was sought to be reviewed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that before the passing of the impugned order dated 16-08-2007 an appeai was filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle before the High Court. 4. By the impugned order, the MACT dismissed the application on the sote ground that in the appeal before the High Court the same grounds had been raised on which a review was sought. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of the impugned order i.e. 16-08-2007, appeal fiSed by the owner and driver before the High Court had already been dismissed which fact was suppressed and on this ground, he prays that the impugned order be set aside. 6. However, I am not inciined to agree. It was open to the Insurance Company to prefer an appeal against the award passed by the MACT. No manifest error is seen in the dismissal of the appiicatson for review. 7. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at admission stage. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 for staying the execution of the award dafed 04.04.2007 is aiso dismissed. Sd/- ' Raosaheb Deshmukh Judse Kvr