1 2025:CGHC:48890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 278 of 2025 1 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Ambikapur, Bramha Road, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) Through Authorized Signatory Incharge T.P. Hub Bilaspur ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Amrit Vishwakarma S/o Shri Mahadev Ram Aged About 27 Years Occupation - Owner Of Vehicle R/o Mohalla Mahamayapara (Nahar Road), Ward No. 20, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2 - Lakhan Viswakarma S/o Late Chandradev Viswakarma Aged About 52 Years Occupation Badhai, Mason Caste Lohar, R/o Mohalla Mahamayapara (Nahar Road) Ward No. 20, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Chandramani W/o Lakhan Viswakarma Aged About 45 Years Occupation Housewife Caste Lohar, R/o Mohalla Mahamayapara (Nahar Road) Ward No. 20, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Meena Devi W/o Ranjeet Viswakarma Aged About 25 Years Occupation Housewife Caste Lohar, R/o Mohalla Mahamayapara (Nahar Road) Ward No. 20, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - Kumari Palak Vishwakarma D/o Late Ranjeet Viswakarma Aged About 3 Years (Minor) Through Guardian Mother Applicant No. 3, Caste Lohar, R/o Mohalla Mahamayapara (Nahar Road) Ward No. 20, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 6 - Tanmaya Viswakarma S/o Late Ranjeet Viswakarma Aged About 1 Years (Minor) Through Guardian Mother Applicant No. 3, Caste Lohar, R/o Mohalla SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Mahamayapara (Nahar Road) Ward No. 20, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 23/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that today case is listed in default of not serving advance copy of this application upon the counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants/claimants i.e. the Respondents No. 1 to 6 herein. Copy has already been served upon the clerk to Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate as also, telephonic information was given. He submits that he will file receipt of the copy served along with the covering memo. 2. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for appellant, default as pointed out by the Registry is overruled. 3. This review petition is filed by the applicant seeking correction of the typographical error in the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed in MAC No.165/2019 pointing out that in the impugned order, due to typographical error the amount of compensation has been erroneously computed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the impugned judgment while computing the total compensation to be awarded to the claimants therein/Respondents No. 2 to 6 due to typographical error, there is mistake in computing the amount of compensation. He submits that in para 19 while computing the amount of compensation, this Court has awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each to Claimants No. 2 & 3 twice and thereby, awarded extra 3 amount of compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the claimant/respondents therein and awarded Rs. 15,65,212/- instead of Rs. 14,85,212/-. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 would show that in Column No. 4 of the chart, this Court awarded compensation towards filial consortium to the Claimant No. 1 & 2 who are parents of the deceased of Rs. 40,000/- each. In Column No. 5, this Court awarded compensation under the head of loss of spousal consortium to the wife i.e. Claimant No. 3 of Rs. 40,000/- and in Column No. 6, compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each to the Claimants No. 2 to 5. 7. From bare perusal of Column No. 4, 5 & 6, it is apparent that the Claimants No. 2 & 3 were awarded compensation towards the loss of consortium twice of Rs. 40,000/- each (i.e. Rs. 80,000/-) due to typographical error. 8. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants requires correction. In table prepared at Para No. 19 of the order subject matter of the review in S.No. 6, the compensation mentioned to be awarded to Claimants No. 2 to 5 be read as Claimants No. 4 and 5 and the total amount of S.No. 6 as Rs. 80,000 instead of Rs. 1,60,000/- and thus, the total compensation be read as Rs. 14,85,212/- instead of Rs. 15,65,212/-. 9. In para 20 of the order, the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,65,212/- be read as Rs. 14,85,212/-. It is ordered accordingly. 4 10.For the foregoing, review petition is allowed in terms as observed above. Registry is directed to make this order as part of record of MAC No. 169/2019 and its order dated 30.06.2025. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey