1 2025:CGHC:37318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 174 of 2025 The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Guddiram Netam S/o. Late Chamru Ram Netam Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village- Kasoli, Manjharpara, Tahsil-Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), Through Santosh Kumar Netam S/o. Late Chamru Ram Netam Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village- Kasoli, Manjharpara, Tahsil-Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), Due To Deaf And Dumb, The Respondent No. 1 Is Represented Through His Brother Santosh Kumar Netam, Claimant (C.G.) 2 - Moturam Taram S/o. Late Kanuram Taram Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village-Kasoli, Manjharpara, Tahsil-Geedam, District - South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), Non-Applicant No. 1, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 3 - Amar Lal Kashyap S/o Late Lacchuram Kashyap, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village- Haram, Tahsil-Geedam, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). Non-Applicant No. 2, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:40 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. 2. The review petitioner has filed this review petition with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the review petition by deducting Rs.5,56,116/- from Rs.16,68,348/- and total amount of compensation be written as Rs.11,96,232/- as given in the table proposed by the applicant and likewise in Line No. 2 of Para-9, for the word "Rs.24,93,836/-" be written as "Rs.11,96,232/-", in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in paragraph-8 of the judgment dated 11.06.2025 passed by this Court in MAC No.1598/2017. He contends that while calculating the compensation amount, 1/3rd of the income, i.e. a sum of Rs.5,56,116/-, which represents the personal and living expenses of the deceased, ought to have been deducted from the total amount of dependency assessed at Rs.16,68,348/-. However, the 3 said deduction was inadvertently omitted. Upon deducting Rs.5,56,116/- towards personal and living expenses, the correct figure comes to Rs.11,12,232/-. Therefore, the said amount is liable to be corrected. It is further submitted that due to the said miscalculation, the total compensation has been incorrectly recorded as Rs.24,93,836/- instead of Rs.11,96,232/-. Accordingly, the amount mentioned in line No.2 of paragraph 9 of the order, i.e., Rs.24,93,836/-, is also liable to be substituted with Rs.11,96,232/- to reflect the correct computation. In view of the above, it is prayed that the error being apparent on the face of the record, the judgment dated 11.06.2025 passed in MAC No.1598/2017 be reviewed and corrected accordingly. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents having no objection. 5. In view of the above and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that there is an apparent error in the calculation of the compensation amount in paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 11.06.2025 passed in MAC No.1598/2017. The amount of Rs.5,56,116/-, being 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses, ought to have been deducted from the assessed dependency amount of Rs.16,68,348/-, which was inadvertently omitted. Accordingly, the said error is rectified and the amount of Rs.5,56,116/- is hereby deducted from the total 4 dependency amount, thereby modifying the final compensation as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Loss of income Rs.5517 x 12 = 66,204 2. Future prospects 40% x 66,204 = 26,482 3. Total of Loos of income plus Future prospects 66,204 + 26,482 = 92,686 4. Application of multiplier 19 92,686 x 18 16,68,348 5. 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased 16,68,348 / 3 5,56,116 6. Dependecy minus 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased 16,68,348 – 5,56,116 11,12,232 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 + 10% increase in 3 years 18,000 8. Loss of estate Rs.15,000 + 10% increase in 3 years 18,000 9. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 + 10% increase in 3 years 48,000 Total Compensation = 11,96,232 6. Accordingly, the amount of dependency is corrected from Rs.16,68,348/- to Rs.11,12,232/- after deducting 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs.5,56,116/-. Consequently, the total compensation is modified from Rs.24,93,836/- to Rs.11,96,232/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,01,034/-, as such after re-calculation the above, total compensation of Rs.5,95,198/- would be payable to the claimant. The interest part of the compensation and other 5 conditions shall be applied as per the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 7. With the above modification, the instant review petition stands allowed. 8. A copy of this order be placed along with the records of MAC No.1598/2017. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh