REVP/337/2026 of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SMT. JAMBO BAI on 30 September 2026

CGHC010357122026

2026:CGHC:42859

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 337 of 2026 • Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Office At Plot No. 102, Indira Commercial Complex, Behind Natraj Hotel, T.P. Nagar Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, C.G.

... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jambo Bai W/o Jageshwar Alias Munna, Aged About 38 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Lailunga, P.S. Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghoda, Currently Residing At Village Badmar, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prahlad S/o Late Jageshwar Alias Munna Aged About 21 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Lailunga, P.S. Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghoda, Currently Residing At Village Badmar, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Umesh S/o Late Jageshwar Alias Munna Aged About 19 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Lailunga, P.S. Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghoda, Currently Residing At Village Badmar, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 4 - Savita D/o Late Jageshwar Alias Munna Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jambo Bai, W/o Late Jageshwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Lailunga, P.S. Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghoda, Currently Residing At Village Badmar, Thana And

Tahsil

Kartala,

District

Koriya,

Chhattisgarh

5 - Anita (Minor) D/o Late Jageshwar Alias Munna Aged About 15 Years Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jambo Bai, W/o Late Jageshwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Lailunga, P.S. Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghoda, Currently Residing At Village Badmar, Thana And

Tahsil

Kartala,

District

Koriya,

Chhattisgarh. 6 - Naushad Raza S/o Seikh Abdul Rehman Aged About 22 Years R/o Khajritap, Thana Bagbahra, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Santosh Prasad Gupta S/o Akhaja P.D. Gupta R/o Qt. No. 1470, Kotwa, Sukwasi Para, Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No.1 to 5 : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice

Sachin Singh Rajput

Judgment On Board 01/10/2026

Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition.

Though opposed, however, taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay and on due consideration, the same is allowed and delay of 21 days in filing the review petition is hereby condoned.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2026 stands disposed of.

Also heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company submits that an award dated 11/01/2018 was passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Korba, District Korba in Claim Case No.13/2014 awarding compensation in favour of Respondents No.1 to 5/claimants on account of death of Jageshwar @ Munna in accident that occurred on 22/02/2014. The said award was subject to challenge before this Court by the Petitioner/Insurance Company in MAC No.829/2018 and by the Respondents No.1 to 5/Claimants in MAC No.1223/2019. This Court vide its order dated 17/07/2026 dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner/Insurance Company and partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents No.1 to 5/Claimants and enhance the total amount of compensation from Rs.15,50,000/- to Rs.16,98,200/- and thus, an additional sum of Rs.1,48,200/- was directed to be paid by the Appellant/Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company further submits that while challenging the same, this review petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company further submits that while awarding the compensation amount, this Court had erred in applying multiplier of 16 and also in awarding compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- by adding Rs.5,50,000/- on other heads, thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record and, the review petition deserves to be admitted.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5/Claimants submits that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company is in the nature of re-hearing of the appeal, which is not permissible in the review jurisdiction of this Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

The grounds, which have been raised by the Mr. Mahishwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company, on re-hearing of the case on merits with regard to application of multiplier and award of compensation on all admissible heads, the law is well settled that the review jurisdiction of the Courts are limited one and it can only be exercised in correcting the error apparent on the face of record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the grounds raised in the review petition does not appear to be permissible, thus, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs. -Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Chandrakant