IN THS HKMt COVaT 0F CHHATnSOARH AT BIIASPUR REVIBW PBTITION N0. 13 /8Q1A (Arising out af arder dated 1»12*201Qpassed in M*A (C)^ N0.84/2006} BETWBEN ^Aman Singh Thakur S/o Ranjit Bingh Thakur, aged ^ed ^aboyt 30 year&, Vehicle Owner- Tractar N^ CO IQA a67& and TroUey No. CG 10 A 3679» resident of Vill^ge Dhandhan, Tahsil Takhatpur»District Bilaspur (CO^. PIBTITIONKR RES^)NBE^T N0.6 P^";"""""....—'r^'l Dat^—^'f";ol' Versus 5., United India Insuranee Company Umitedi Rajendra Nagar Chowk^ Bilaspur (CO). (AppeKant/Iiisurance Co*} Smt. Santoshi Bai, Widow of Ram Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 year&, 3^.. Ku» Jyoti ^ dStUghter of Late Raj KumarYadav , aged abaut Syears, 4^^- Karan^ son of Late Raj KuinarYadayi aged abaut 9 years. ( Sl* No» 3 and 4 minori through natural guardian mother Smt Santc^hi Bai , widow of Rajkumar Yadav»and Sl» No* 2 to 4 all resident of ViUage Belsari j> P.S» B& Tah^l Takha-tpuff^ District Bilaspur , present resident of Chhatona, P.S. Jarh^gaQn^ Tah&il M^Higeli^ District Bilaspur (CG). ( Respondent na» 1 to^ 4) Claimanta Melauram^ san crf Jhadiiram^ aged about 25 years^ Vehicle Driver TractQr no, CG 10A/36S and Tralley Na. CG IOA/3679, re&ident of ViBa.ge Jareli, Post Taldiatpur, Tafa&il aii<i Police Station Takhatpur, District BOaspur (CG}» (Driver } RBSPOHDENTB ^ REVIEW PETmON POR R3SVIEWIHG THE C»iDEBjL-^^. . .^^ DATED i.12.2010 PASSED !N M.A* (Cl NOS^4^2gAM ^1^^ THE HONBLE DIVISION BENCH COypmSJHO OF ^ HONLE SHRI JUSTICE I.M. OUDDUSI & HONBLE SHRI N.K^O^AWALJJ. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 13of2011 PETniONER RESPONDENTS Aman Singh Thakur Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & others APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF OBDER DATED 01.12.2010 DB: Hon'bleShri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on 24.02.2011) 1. Heard on IA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing the review petltion. 2. On due considemtion, we are satisfied that the counsel for petitioner is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing this review petition. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. 3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 01.12.2010, passed by this court in MA. (C) No. 84/06 (United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Santoshi Bai <fe others). 4. This Court has passed the order after penising the lower court rccord and weighing the evidenee adduced in the claims tribunal by the witnesses including the claimant's witnesses. 5. The scope of review is very limited. This court cannot sit as an appellate court to review its judgment. The findings have been given by this court on the basis ofrecord and the evidence available on record, therefore, no case is made out for review. ^WWBINI^^'' 6. There is no ground available for review of the order dated 01.12.2010 under the garb ofthe review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 7. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^^.