Allowed

Smt. Chandrakala Sharma v. Subhash

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2023REVP/15/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hon'ble Court allowed a review petition filed by claimants against an motor accident compensation order. The Court held that since interest remains intact upon enhancement of compensation, the insurance company must deposit the amount with tribunal-quantified interest.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.1 allowed; delay condoned; Insurance company directed to deposit compensation with 6% interest.

Smt. Chandrakala Sharma Vs Subhash — Chhattisgarh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 15 of 2023

¶5

Smt. Chandrakala Sharma W/o Late Hemprasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Khamhariya, P.S. And Tah. Khamhariya (So Called Claimant), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Dushyant Sharma S/o Late Hemprasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Khamhariya, P.S. And Tah. Khamhariya (So Called Claimant), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Subhash S/o Kumar Satnami Aged About 28 Years R/o Singhouri, P.S. Pipariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶10

Lakhan S/o Balram Mandle Aged About 49 Years R/o Indouri, Police Station Pipariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

Shriram General Insurance Company 10003 E-8, Rico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, District : Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For petitioner

¶14

: Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶16

07/02/2023

¶17

1 . Considering the nature of claim raised by the petitioner, I.A. No.1 stands allowed. The delay in filing the review petition stands condoned.

¶18

2 . The present review petition has been filed seeking for review of the order passed in MAC No.727 of 2013 decided on 12.09.2022.

¶19

3 . The review has been sought on the limited ground that in the course of deciding the MAC, this Court has not specified the rate of interest on the compensation that stands enhanced. According to the petitioner, the Claims Tribunal while deciding the claims case i.e. Claim Case NO.44 of 2012 had awarded 6% interest on the compensation quantified. In the course of disposal of appeal the

¶20

¶21

interest part is not reflected and the present review petition therefore has been filed.

¶22

4 . Given the nature of relief that the petitioner seeks for and on perusal of order passed by this Court in MAC No. 727 of 2013, this Court do not intend to issue notice to the respondents and keep the matter pending on this ground alone. It goes without saying that the appeal stood allowed and compensation stands enhanced and this Court has not specifically held that the claimants shall not be entitled for compensation would automatically mean that the interest awarded by the Tribunal i.e. 6% interest on the quantum quantified shall remain intact. It is only the compensation part which stands revised by this Court in the appeal and the interest part remained intact. The insurance company which has been saddled with the liability of payment of compensation, would also require and is directed to deposit the amount along with interest at the rate quantified by the Tribunal i.e. 6% per annum from the date of application.

¶23

5 . The review petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶25

Rohit

Smt. Chandrakala Sharma v. Subhash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandrakala Sharma v. Subhash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugal Kishore Kesharwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Annaprasan Das Vs Umashankar Rajwade

Smt. Sarojani Karke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Jat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Usil Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neeraj Jain Vs Premu Lal Sahu