Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. D. Janki vs Lakhan Sahu on 9 May, 2025
1
Digitally
2025:CGHC:21561
A signed by
ANNAJEE A
RAO ANNAJEE
RAO
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 112 of 2025
1 - Smt. D. Janki Wd/o Late D. Ramarao Aged About 30 Years R/o
Subash Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
2 - D. Shashi D/o Late D. Ramarao Aged About 14 Years Through Legal
Guardian Mother Smt. D. Janki Widow Of Late Ramarao, R/o Subash
Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
3 - Ku. D. Roshni D/o Late D. Ramarao Aged About 13 Years Through
Legal Guardian Mother Smt. D. Janki Widow Of Late Ramarao, R/o
Subash Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
4 - Smt. D.Kammamma Wd/o Late D.Papaiya, Aged About 60 Years
Through Smt. D.Janaki Widow Of Late D.Ramarao, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Subash Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Lakhan Sahu S/o Shivcharan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Shahid
Veer Narayan Singh Nagar, Ward No.28, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg,
2
Chhattisgarh And Through Magma Office, R.K.C. Complex, G.E.Road,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Royal Sundarum Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
N.K. Thakur, Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
09/05/2025
1. Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the present
review petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
were not adequately informed by their previous counsel about the
disposal of MAC No. 1430 of 2016, therefore, bonafide delay is
there in filing the review petition. He placed reliance on a decision
of the Supreme Court in case of Mool Chandra Versus Union of
India (2025) 1 SCC 625 and submits that where cause for delay
falls within four corners of "sufficient cause" irrespective of length
of delay, same deserved to be condoned.
3. On due consideration, the delay in filing the review petition is
condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 is allowed.
4. Heard on review petition.
5. By judgment dated 19.04.2024 passed in MAC No. 1430/2016
(Smt. D. Janki & others Versus Lakhan Sahu) the compensation
of Rs.12,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to
Rs.27,82,000/- with a further direction that the enhanced amount
of Rs.15,37,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of enhancement of the award till its realisation.
6. The prayer made in this review petition is that this Court ought to
have directed that the enhanced amount of Rs.15,37,000/-
should carry interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till
its realisation and not from the date of enhancement and to that
extent the order dated 19.04.2024 be modified.
7. I have gone through the review petition and material available on
record.
8. Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs.
Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 8 SCC 612 held in para 22
that mistake or error apparent signifies an error which is evident
per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed
examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the
legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof
requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be
treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the
purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. On perusal of record of the review petition and the order under
review, I do not find any error apparent on record warranting
review of the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by this Court in MAC
No.1430/2016. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
