Review — Scope and limitations — Section 114 CPC & Order 47 Rule 1 CPC — No new evidence / no error apparent — Review not maintainable (Paras 11, 16–17)
Issue: Whether the judgment enhancing compensation can be reviewed.
Facts: The respondent/APSRTC sought review on the ground that compassionate appointment given in 2019 to claimant’s daughter was not placed before the Court, though the fact was within its knowledge and existed prior to the appellate judgment (2022); no new material discovered and no error apparent shown.
Held: Review lies only on discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or sufficient reason. Failure to produce available material earlier does not satisfy these requirements; hence, review is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. (Paras 11, 16–17)
Motor Vehicles Act — Compensation — Compassionate appointment — Not a pecuniary advantage — Irrelevant for deduction (Paras 12–14, 16)
Issue: Whether compassionate appointment affects computation of compensation.
Facts: Daughter of deceased was given compassionate appointment as Conductor, and insurer sought reduction of compensation on that basis.
Held: Salary from compassionate appointment does not fall within pecuniary advantage and has no nexus with compensation under accident claims; hence, cannot be deducted. (Paras 12–14, 16)
Delay condonation — Review petition — Liberal approach — Allowed to examine merits (Paras 8–9)
Issue: Whether delay of 929 days in filing review petition is liable to be condoned.
Facts: Delay attributed to misplacement of file, obtaining legal opinion, and change of counsel, coupled with a legal issue raised.
Held: Though reasons were weak, delay condoned to enable adjudication on merits, following principle that matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. (Paras 8–9)
