[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd vs Baby. M.T on 20 February, 2026

RP No.124 of 2026
                                    1

                                                          2026:KER:14900

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                    &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

 FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947

                           RP NO. 124 OF 2026

           AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2025 IN WA NO.2753 OF

2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER:
          SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
          HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT ERNAKULAM
          MADATHIKUNNEL COMPLEX, KATHRIKADAVU JUNCTION,
          KALOOR, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
          CONSUMER LITIGATION CLAIMS,, PIN - 682017

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
              SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS:
    1     BABY. M.T.,
          AGED 49 YEARS
          SON OF THOMAS, MALATTEL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM.P.O.,
          RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686663

       2      KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, ELECTRICAL
              SECTION, PAMPAKADA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686667

              BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY
THIS       REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON 20.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP No.124 of 2026
                              2

                                               2026:KER:14900

                           JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII

Rule I read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure

seeking review of the judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed in WA

No.2753/2025 whereby the Writ Appeal has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1 st

respondent/complainant's vehicle was detained by the Kerala

State Electricity Board Ltd, ie, the 2nd respondent herein. In

order to get the vehicle released, he was compelled to pay the

amount as claimed, ie, Rs.68,437/-. The 1st respondent

approached the appellant seeking re-imbursement of the said

amount as the vehicle was covered with an insurance package

policy covering the third party risk including property damage

etc. Since there was no re-imbursement from the appellant, the

1st respondent submitted a complaint before the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in CC

2026:KER:14900

No.580/2023. The issue with regard to jurisdiction of the District

Commission was raised on the ground that it had no jurisdiction

to consider the disputes which come under the scope of Section

126 of the Electricity Act of 2003. The District Forum, after

hearing the parties concerned, passed order dated 21.04.2025,

rejecting the said contention and held that the complaint is

maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,

2019. Being aggrieved, the Review Petitioner challenged the

order in the Writ Petition before this Court. The learned Single

Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and held that the complaint is

maintainable. Being aggrieved the Review Petitioner filed Writ

Appeal No.2753/2025. This Court came to the conclusion as

under:

"15. After carefully going through all the statutory provisions and the implications thereof with reference to the grievances highlighted by the 1st respondent in the complainant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Consumer Forum has rightly decided the issue with regard to jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to other contentions raised by the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the State Commission has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal

2026:KER:14900

and also to the decide the issue of jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum.

16. With the aforesaid, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant would be at liberty to approach the State Commission within a period of 30 days from today, if so advised. The period spent before this Court in prosecuting the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition shall not be taken into account by the State Commission while considering any application for condonation of delay etc., in accordance with law.

All interlocutory applications as regards interim matters stands closed."

Being aggrieved, the present Review Petition is filed.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

this Court erred in dismissing the Writ Appeal inasmuch as the

matter relating to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be entertained

by the District Consumer Commission since the Motor Vehicles

Act is a Special Act, therefore, Consumer Protection Act, 2019

(For short the Act) would not apply. This Court failed to consider

this fact and dismissed the Writ Appeal on the ground of

alternative remedy. Thus this Review Petition may be allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and

perused the records.

2026:KER:14900

5. We have carefully gone through all the statutory

provisions. Admittedly, the appeal is provided to the State

Consumer Commission under Section 41 of the Act of 2019. Apart

from this, the State Commission is empowered to decide the

jurisdiction to hear the appeal as also to decide the issue of

jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint

before the District Forum. In view of the aforesaid, we refrain

from entertaining the present Review Petition since no apparent

error is seen on the face of record. But, it is only an

interpretation of statute.

6. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle

the court to exercise its power of review, it would be

appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as

the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex

Court as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC

are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or

order of a Court is concerned.

2026:KER:14900

7. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

"114. Review-

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:

"1. Application for review of judgment.

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such

2026:KER:14900

appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

Explanation-

The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."

9. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read

with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on

setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner;

(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or

(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record,or

(iii) any other sufficient reason.

10. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi

[(1980) 2 SCC 167], the Apex Court held that under the guise of

review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue

the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.

11. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi

[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:

"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of

2026:KER:14900

the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

(Underline supplied)

12. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013)15 SCC

534], the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face

of record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no

search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not

an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of

the matter on merits.

13. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and

others [AIR 2017 SC 1432], the Apex Court held that in order to

exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident

and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.

14. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State

Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677], the Apex Court,

2026:KER:14900

by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715], held thus:

"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided".

15. Again, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd

[2024 SCC Online SC 1090], the Apex Court considered the

grounds for review in detail and held thus:

"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: