2025:CGHC:10943 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 135 of 2024 Tata A I G General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Manager, Registered Office At Penikhhula, Buisness Park, Tower-A 15th Floor, G K Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 40013 Maharashtra, District- Nagpur, Maharashtra ---- Appellant Versus 1. Subhash Chouhan, S/o Gajadhar Chouhan, aged about 48 Years, R/o Sanjay Nagar Ward No. 4, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Sita Devi, W/o Subhash Chouhan, aged about 44 Years, R/o Sanjay Nagar Ward No. 4, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vijay Chouhan, S/o Subash Chouhan, aged about 17 Years, Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Father Subash Chouhan, R/o Sanjay Nagar Ward No. 4, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Priyanka Kumari Chouhan, D/o Subash Chouhan, aged about 14 Years, Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Father Subash Chouhan, R/o Sanjay Nagar Ward No. 4, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. Abdul Hamid Khan, S/o Abdul Sattar, aged about 36 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Seoni, Tahsil And District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh 6. Gahendra Gour, S/o Gopal Gour, R/o House No. 172, Near Krishna Talkies, Bhoipara, Santra Market, Nagpur, District- Nagpur Maharashtra --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Shristi Upadhaya, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Shri Anadi Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. This review petition has been filed for correction of the order dated 18/01/2024 ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.10 16:53:13 +0530 -2- passed by this Court in M.A.C. No. 05/2018. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 to 4 have filed an application under Section 166 and 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) before the Additional Judge of I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) which was allowed in part in claim case No. 103/2015 vide its award dated 04/10/2017 and compensation of Rs. 08,64,000/- was awarded to respondent No. 1 to 4/claimants. Owner and driver i.e. respondent No. 5 & 6 herein were held liable to pay compensation exonerating the petitioner/Insurance Company. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 to 4/claimants have filed an appeal under section 173 (2) of the MV Act. This vide its order dated 18/01/2024, partly allowed the appeal and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.10,21,600/- and the respondent 1 to 4/claimants were held entitled to receive Rs.1,57,600/- with 6% interest from the date of claim application. In the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 to 4/claimants none of the parties argued that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated. However in the order dated 18/01/2024 paragraph – 9 instead of respondent No. 2 respondent No.3 has been inadvertently mentioned. Therefore, the typographical error cropped up in paragraph - 9 may be corrected and the application may be allowed. 4. It is not opposed by the claimants/Owner. 5. In view of the above, this review petition is allowed and the word and figure “respondent No.3” appearing in paragraph – 9 of the order dated 18/01/2024 in MAC No.05/2018 be read as “respondent No.2”. 6. Copy of the order be kept with the record of MAC No.05/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish