← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/34/2018dismissed

Teejau Sahu v. Bhuvneshwar Devdas

2018-05-01Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 34 of 2018 • Teejau Sahu, S/o Sitaram Sahu, aged about 67 years, R/o Village Bhanbhoj, P.S. Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Bhuvneshwar Devdas S/o Dayal Devdas Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhanbhoj, Mahamaya Chowk, P.S. Arang, Tahsil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle Maruti No. CG 04-B-4964)

2. Johanram S/o Jageshwer Devangan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bhanbhog, P.S. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehicle Maruti No. CG 04-B-4964)

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Vehicle Maruti No. CG 04-B-4964) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent :

None.

Hon'ble Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 01.05.2018 1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the review Petitioner quite in extensio. 2.

As noted in the previous order dated 02.04.2018, the order sought to be reviewed was issued by the Division Bench on 14.03.2017 at the stage of admission in an appeal against on award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The counsel who appeared for the Appellant in that appeal was heard in extensio. The order sought to be reviewed clearly discloses that the factual aspects and legal aspects were considered by the Division Bench and there is

no error apparent on the face of the record. It is not disputed that, before the Tribunal, no Doctor was examined to support the pleading as regards the alleged injuries. The Division Bench relied on two judgments of the Apex Court and held that in the case in hand, the issue could not have been concluded otherwise by the Tribunal. We do not see any ground to review the judgment. 3.

We also see that the review application is highly belated and no justifiable reason is stated in I.A. No.1 of 2018 to condone the delay in instituting this review application.

4.

Hence, this application for review as well as the application for condonation of delay in instituting this review application are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan