Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Bilaspur Through Its ... vs Mr. Nageshwar S/O Salikram Kirsan on 19 January, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:800
(1) 901.cao.1100.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.1100 OF 2023
IN
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.13752 OF 2023 (Review)
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.332 OF 2021
Union of India, Through it's General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
Chattisgarh
Vs.
Nageshwar s/o Salikram Kirsan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. A. S. Athalye, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R. S. Charpe, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 19/01/2024
1. The application is for condonation of delay
of 56 days which is caused in preferring the review
application. It is submitted by the learned Counsel Ms.
Athalye for the applicant that as the concerned officer of
the applicant has to obtain the necessary approvals of the
Superior which she could not obtained within time and
therefore, delay of 56 days is caused. It is further her
contention that when the judgment was passed her name
was not reflected on the cause list and, therefore, she
could not ascertain the information about the disposal of
the matter and therefore, delay is caused.
(2) 901.cao.1100.2023
2. The learned Counsel Mr. Charpe for the
respondent raised objection that delay is not explained
properly.
3. After hearing both the sides and after
considering the reasons mentioned in the application,
there are sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation
of delay. In view of that, delay is condoned.
Civil Application No.1100/2023 is disposed
of.
Miscellaneous Civil Application Stamp No.13752 of 2023
(Review)
1. The application is filed by the applicant on
the ground that this Court has allowed the First Appeal
No.332/2021 granting the compensation to the
respondent (original appellant). However, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs.
Radha Yadav reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410, the
respondent is not entitled for interest and therefore, the
judgment of this Court requires to be reviewed, as far as
the interest part is concerned.
2. The said review application is also strongly
opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent on
the ground that this Court has considered the aspect and
granted the interest. There is no error apparent on
(3) 901.cao.1100.2023
record and, therefore, the review application deserves to
be dismissed.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the
applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent,
perused the grounds of review. Admittedly, the
notification dated 22.11.2016 by which the Rules and
the Scheduled was revised. In view of the Rules from
dated 01.01.2017 the applicant is entitled for interest, if
the alleged date of accident is after 01.01.2017. She
further submitted that the issue clarified by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav
(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
the issue raised in the matter does not really require any
elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in
Rina Devi is very clear. What this Court has laid down is
that the amount of compensation payable on the date of
accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be
calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the
amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the
claimant would be entitled to higher of these two
amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the
amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as
per the Schedule as was in existence before the
amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of
interest would be calculated. If there be any difference
between the amount so calculated and the amount
prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award,
(4) 901.cao.1100.2023
the higher of two figures would be the measure of
compensation.
4. Admittedly, in the present case, the alleged
incident occurred on 08.06.2015 i.e. prior to the date of
the amendment. Therefore, the respondent is not
entitled for interest and only entitled for payment of
compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- as per the scheduled.
5. In view of this, review application deserves to
be allowed by passing following order.
ORDER
(i) Review application is allowed.
(ii) The respondent (original
appellant) is entitled to receive the
compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rs. Three
Lakh Twenty Thousand) without any
interest.
(iii) The applicant to deposit the
amount within 60 days from the date of this
order.
The review application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/01/2024 13:28:32
