1 2025:CGHC:59068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 379 of 2025 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Tara Complex, G. E. Road, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sukhvindar Kour Wd/o Gurmeet Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Shop No. K/3,-89, Ward No. 31, Subhas Market, Sector 11, Zone-2, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Hanishal D/o Late Gurmeet Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Her Mother Smt. Sukhvindar Kour (Respondent No. 1) R/o Shop No. K/3,-89, Ward No. 31, Subhas Market, Sector 11, Zone-2, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Jogendar Kour Wd/o Late Ajit Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Shop No. K/3,-89, Ward No. 31, Subhas Market, Sector 11, Zone-2, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Manjula Gupta Wd/o Vinay Gupta R/o House No. 15/11, Neharu Nagar, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Max Pickup No. Cg-Zd-5095) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Sahu on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Prachi Diwan on behalf of Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 for modification/correction/recall of common judgment/order dated 18.11.2024 passed in M.A.C. No. 765/2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/company submits that due to bonafide mistake in para 2 of its judgment/order in place of Rs. 35,74,000/-, Rs. 21,20,000/- and in place of Late Gurmeet Singh, Late Arun Kumar and in place of Rs. 8,38,000/-, Rs. 3,94,000/- has been typed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised no objection in this regard. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that due to inadvertent mistake in para 2 of the judgment/order dated 18.11.2024 the amount of claim has been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 21,20,000/- in place of Rs. 35,74,000/- and the name of the appellant has been wrongly mentioned as Late Arun Kumar in place of Late Gurmeet Singh and the amount of award passed by Tribunal has been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 3,94,000/- in place of Rs. 8,38,000/-. 6. Para 2 of the order dated 18.11.2025 reads as under: “2. As against the compensation of Rs. 21,20,000/- claimed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 3 account of death of the deceased Late Arun Kumar, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,94,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum in favour of the claimant and against the appellant/insurance company.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid mistakes in para 2 is bonafide and the same is rectified by this order. Therefore, the order dated 18.11.2025 stands modified and para 2 of the said order will now be read as under: “2. As against the compensation of Rs. 35,74,000/- claimed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of the deceased Late Gurmeet Singh, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,38,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum in favour of the claimant and against the appellant/insurance company.” 8. Accordingly, the present review petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima