1 2025:CGHC:21561 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, A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 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 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 4 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