Delay of 5 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          This revision petition was dismissed on 29.7.2009.  Petitioner, thereafter, filed a review application in which it was stated that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license to drive a ‘Light Transport Vehicle’ under Section 22 (47) of Motor Vehicles Act whereas the driver had driving license to drive ‘Light Transport Vehicle’ only.  Since this point had not been considered by us in our order we ordered the revision petition to be listed for rehearing on the

ground mentioned in the review application.  On being pointed out that this point had not been taken in the revision petition, counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that this point had neither been taken in the revision petition nor in the Written Statement filed before the District Forum; the only point taken was that the driver did not have valid driving license. 

Since the point that the driver did not have the valid driving license to drive ‘Light Transport Vehicle’ had not been taken by the petitioner either in the Written Statement filed before the District Forum or in the revision petition the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge this point.  Order passed by us on 29.7.2009 cannot be reviewed on this account.  In so far as the question regarding valid license is concerned, that has already been considered by us in our order dated 29.7.2009.  This Commission can review the order only if there is any error apparent on the face of the record.  In the present case, there is no error on the face of the record.  Review petition as well as revision petition are dismissed.