IN THE HONrBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnslm?Benck BILASPUR (C.G.) REVIEW PETITION N0. ~IL| OF 2011 fD.B.) fARISING OUT OF THE ORDER fORAU DATED 19.07.2011 IN THE MATTER OF M.A. fC) N0. 233/2007. BETWEEN NAND KUMAR SONI VS. ^AURI DEVI CHAUHAN AND OTHERS) APPLICANT : /APPELLANT IN M.A. N0. 233/2007 ..,.A^"" ^^'):^-:?"';T / ' Q\^~^ ^^" (y ^ ^o'^^-":"r ^?1^' ?o>^-r ^ ^ESPONDENTS Claimants ^- 2. ^" ^' ^" ^lMand Kumar Soni, son of Shri Bhoj Ram Soni, aged about 61 years, Resident of Bandhwapara way of Pahhaldawa Talab Raipur, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattigarh), At Present Supervisor Zeela Sahkari Central Bank, Branch Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) fNow retiredt VERSUS Gauri Devi Chauhan, widow of Gopal Singh, aged about 47 years, Narsingh Chouhan, son of late Gopal Singh Chouhan, aged about 27years, Pradip Chouhan, son of late Gopal Chouhan, aged about 23 years, Ku. Priti Chouhan, daughter of late Gopal Singh Chouhan, aged about 19 years, Pankaj Chouhan, son of late Gopal Singh Chouhan, aged about 16 years, a minor through guardian mother Smt. Gauri Devi, wd/o Gopal Singh Chouhan, All are Resident of Shankernagar, Ward No. 1, near Bawali, Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ^; REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE l READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Review Petition No. 74 of 2011 Nand Kumar Soni Applicant Appellant in M.A.No.233/2007 Respondent Claimants Vs Gauri Devi Chauhan and others Present: Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the respondents/claimants. ORDER(Oral) (1stNovember,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This review petition has been filed on two grounds, firstly that the miscellaneous applications pending were to be considered at the time of final hearing, but were not considered, and secondly, that son of the deceased had got compassionate appointment and this was not in the knowledge of the applicant at the time when the appeal was filed or before that and as such, he could not raise the same and therefore, if the compassionate appointment in place of the deceased is considered, the quantum fixed by the Tribunal would be liable to be reduced. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant as also for the claimants, and with their consent, this review petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. With regard to non-consideration of the miscellaneous applications, it is to be noticed that applicant had filed an application for admitting the document i.e. order dated 22.4.2008 whereby the applicant has been acquitted by the criminal Court of the offence under Section 304A of the IPC,,on record. The another application was for treating the aforesaid application as an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. ^ ..^^^^s 4. The order of acquittal dated 22.4.2008 was seen at the time of final hearing, which was based on no evidence. This Court had specifically mentioned in para-7 of the order under review that "there is a statement of eyewitness AW-2 Narsingh Chauhan, who has stated that on the date of incident he had seen the appellant driving the motorcycle in question and his father sitting as a pillion rider. He has been cross-examined at length and in his cross- examination also, he has stated that he had seen the appellant Nand Kumar Soni driving the motorcycle. Thus, from the above unrebutted evidence of eyewitness AW-2, it is evident that the appellant was driving the motorcycle in question on the date of accident." There was unrebutted evidence of the eyewitness AW-2 before the Tribunal, whereas before the criminal Court there was no evidence against the applicant and hence, he was acquitted by the criminal Court. However, finding of the criminal Court is not binding on the claims Tribunal. 5. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was acquitted by the criminal Court and this fact was not considered by this Court at the time of final hearing, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. The next contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, son ofthe deceasedhas got compassionate appointment vide Annexure A-3, and even after exercise of due diligence, this fact was not within the knowledge ofthe appellant/applicant and as such, it could not be brought to the notice of the claims Tribunal as well as this Court and therefore, so far as quantum part is concerned, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in this regard. 7. On being asked by this Court, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants does not dispute the fact that son of late Gopal Singh Chauhan namely Pradeep Kumar Rajput has been given compassionate appointment on the post of peon (i^) by District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Raipur. 8. Upon perusal of the document Annexure A-3, we find that son of the deceased namely Pradeep Kumar Rajput has been appointed on -^^ ..i^'"%' sv%] ...^ ^ compassionate basis on account of death of his father/deceased on the post of peon (^) by the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Raipur, on the pay-scale of 3050-75-3950-80-4750. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that so far as quantum part is concerned, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Tribunal for re-assessment of the amount of compensation in view of compassionate appointment provided to the son ofthe deceased. 9. In the result, the review petition is allowed in part and consequently, the order under review is modified to the extent that the appeal stands allowed in part, the liability fixed by the claims Tribunal is affirmed, however, with regard to quantum part, the matter is remitted back to the claims Tribunal to decide the same afresh in the light of aforesaid obsen/ations, after providing opportunity to the claimants as well as to the applicant herein to lead evidence in support of their contentions. The Tribunal shall decide the limited issue i.e. re-fixing of amount of compensation, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. 10. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 29 November, 2011. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge K/