1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1197 of 2024 1 - Smt. Luxmi Devi Tamrkar W/o Ashok Tamrkar Aged About 45 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Udaipur (Patrapara) Police Station And Tahsil- Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashok Tamrkar S/o Sitaram Tamrkar Aged About 50 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Udaipur (Patrapara) Police Station And Tahsil- Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Applicants(s) versus 1 - Mulchand S/o Ganga Prasad Raidash Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Titoli, Post- Mau, P.S. Mau Chitrakut, Uttar Pradesh. (Driver) 2 - Jemco Ltd Through Senior Officer 1st Floor Alaska Corporate Jeevan Vihar Colony Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through Attorney Holder Vinit Kumar Shukla S/o Raghvendra Prasa Shukla Aged About 30 Years, Occupation Service Senior Officer Jemco Ltd 1st Floor Alaska Corporate Jeevan Vihar Colony Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh...................Owner, 3 - Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Ambika Petrol Pump Campus Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh......................Insurer. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. N. K. Malviya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 17.01.2025 1) Heard. 2) This MCC has been filed by the applicant to correct the typographical error in paragraph 12 of order dated 01.02.2024 passed in MAC No.229 of 2019. 3) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have filed an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) before this Court against an award dated 02.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No.39/2018. This Court partly allowed the said appeal filed by the applicants directing the respondent No.2 to deposit the additional compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- and the said amount of compensation be deposited within 60 days from today else it will carry interest @ 6% from the date of order. He further submits that the Respondent No.3 insurance company is held liable by the Claims Tribunal to pay the amount of compensation and they have not challenged the award, however, inadvertently and typographical error a direction was issued to Respondent No.2 instead of Respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company who is liable to pay enhanced compensation amount otherwise it will carry interest @ 6% from the date of order. He further submits that the correction may be made in the order dated 01.02.2024 passed in MAC No.229 of 2019. 3 4) Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that applicants came for correction of the order after considerable period of delay, therefore, respondent cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest. 5) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6) Admittedly, in the Claim Case No.39/2018, the respondent No.3 was held liable to pay the compensation and as such there was no appeal filed by them before this Court. However it has to be seen that inadvertently and typographical error instead of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 is held liable. The direction was that if the amount was not paid within a period of 60 days from the date of order it will carry interest @ 6 % from the date of order. 7) Considering the submissions made at the bar and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in paragraph 12 the word and figure Respondent No.2 shall be read as Respondent No.3. It is also made clear that the compensation enhanced by this Court is not deposited within the period of 60 days from today by respondent No.3, respondent No.3 the Insurance company shall pay interest @ 6% on the enhance amount of compensation from the date of original order i.e. 01.02.2024. 8) With these observation(s) and direction(s) this MCC is disposed of. C.C. as per rules Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H. Ansari