M.Saravanan vs P.Dhanapal
2022 Latest Caselaw 1287 Mad

                                                                                       Rev.A.No.79 of 2021

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                       Dated: 27.01.2022
                                                              Coram:
                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
                                                      Rev.A.No.79 of 2021
                     M.Saravanan                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                                vs.

                     1.P.Dhanapal
                     2.Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       No.25/26, Prince Towers,
                       4th Floor, College Road,
                       Chennai – 600 006.                                        ... Respondents

                                  Review Application filed under section 47 Rule 1 r/w 114 of CPC
                     seeking to review the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court in
                     CMA.No.110 of 2012 dated 01.09.2020.
                                             For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

                                             For Respondent 2 : Mrs.R.Sree vidhya

                                                              ORDER

The present review application has been filed seeking for review of

the earlier judgment dated 01.09.2020 passed by this court in CMA.No.110

of 2012 as according to the review petitioner, the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in 2017 SAR (Civil) 444 was not brought to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.A.No.79 of 2021

notice of this Court and if the said judgment was considered, pay and

recovery rights ought to have been granted in favour of the petitioner.

2. The facts of the present claim and the facts of the claim in the

aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are entirely

different. In the case on hand, the review petitioner has himself admitted

that he was not a driver of the insured vehicle, but he was only a loadman

who was carrying water cans at the time of the accident. The insurance

policy gives coverage for only one person i.e., a driver. Therefore, it can be

confirmed that the petitioner was only a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the

finding of this Court in its judgment dated 01.09.2020 passed in

CMA.No.110 of 2012 is a correct finding. As there is no error apparent on

the face of the judgment as alleged by the petitioner in this review petition,

the review application is liable to be rejected.

3. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that

there is no merit in this review application. Accordingly, this review

application is dismissed. No costs.

27.01.2022 nl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.A.No.79 of 2021

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J nl

Rev.A.No.79 of 2021

27.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis