Smt. Pramodani Kashyap v. Jagdish Nayak

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 79 of 2018

1. Smt. Pramodani Kashyap W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Aged About 32 Years

2. Avinash Kashyap S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Aged About 9 Years

3. Ku. Prachi Kashyap D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Aged About 8 Years Petitioner No. 2 & 3 are Minors And The Legal Guardian Is The Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Pramodani Kashyap, W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Kashyap All are R/o Village Changori, Post Bathena, Police Station And Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Qr. No. 6/I, Street No. 46, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Police Station Kotwali (Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar), District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Jagdish Nayak S/o Chandramani Nayak Aged About 33 Years R/o Bhatapara, Bhorsi Road, Ruwabhata Bhilai, Post Ruwabhata, Police Station Sector 6, Kotwali, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh.

2. Sonal Rungata S/o Shri Santosh Rungata Aged About 32 Years Director, Rungata College Of Dental Science And Resource, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh, R/o Rungta Bhawan, Ganjpara, Durg, Post, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Regional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company, Durg, Region Office, Parmanand Bhawan, Near Rajendra Chowk, Beside Bal Pretrol Pump, Post, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/08/2018

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2018 passed in MAC No. 1075/2012.

2. The said MAC was an appeal by the Claimants seeking for enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 1/2011. Vide the award dated 01.08.2012, learned Tribunal has awarded a gross compensation of Rs.16,85,741/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application.

3. This Court while entertaining the appeal of the Claimants vide judgment dated 07.08.2018 (the judgment which is under review) had enhanced the compensation to Rs.22,98,400/-.

4. Against the said judgment, the Claimants had preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 03.07.2018 the Claimants without any observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court withdrew the SLP with permission to file a review petition before this Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the review petition has been filed only on the limited grounds that the yearly income assessed by this Court at Rs.1,48,560/- is not proper, whereas it should had been Rs.2,27,897/-. According to the petitioners, the Tribunal had relied upon a document Exhibit D/54 while assessing the yearly income, which has not been taken note of by this Court, and therefore the quantification of the income has got reduced. The petitioners have not been able to show any error, apparent on the face of record.

6. The said contentions and the grounds raised by the petitioners seeking review, in the opinion of this Court may not be a ground available for entertaining the review petition.

7. This Court in paragraph No.8 of its judgment has in very categorical terms taken Exhibit P/53 as the basis for quantification the monthly income as well as the yearly income.

8. Once when the finding of this Court is based on certain documents on record, the ground which the petitioners now seek to raise may not be available to them under the review jurisdiction. If at all the applicants were aggrieved of the finding of this Court, the solution available to them was to challenge the same before the higher forum.

9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the review petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved