Page No.1 of 2 IN REVP-344-2025 2025:CGHC:55693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 344 of 2025 [Arising out of order 04.08.2025, passed in MAC-369-2022 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boti Podyami and others) by this Court] The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager, Branch Office Laxman Avenue Compartment Maharani Hospital Road Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, C.G., Through T.P. Hub Office, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. First Floor, Lic Building Magarpara Road Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. (Insurance Co. ) (Address As Now) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Boti Podyami S/o Late Konda Podyami Aged About 55 Years R/o Village, Gadhda Jampadar, P.S. Kodenar, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants/respondent No. 1 To 4) 2 - Smt. Pando Bai Podyami W/o Boti Podyami Aged About 50 Years R/o Village, Gadhda Jampadar, P.S. Kodenar, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants/respondent No. 1 To 4) 3 - Mangluram Podyami S/o Boti Podyami Aged About 18 Years R/o Village, Gadhda Jampadar, P.S. Kodenar, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants/respondent No. 1 To 4) 4 - Mankuram Podyami S/o Boti Podyami Aged About 18 Years R/o Village, Gadhda Jampadar, P.S. Kodenar, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants/respondent No. 1 To 4) 5 - Shivam Nag S/o Ranjan Nag Aged About 31 Years R/o Gumda Thota Para, Tahsil Geedam, P.S. Geedam, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Driver/respondent No. 5) 6 - Santosh Kumar Nag S/o Krishna Nag Aged About 33 Years R/o Barsoor Ward No. 2, P.S. Geedam, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner/respondent No. 6) ... Respondents Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 2 IN REVP-344-2025 (Order In Chamber) 13.11.2025 1. The above-stated review petition is taken up for consideration in Chamber in view of Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules of 2007”). 2. I have gone through the review petition and the annexed documents. 3. After going through the record of the review petition and the documents annexed therewith and also the order under review, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review in the said order dt. 04.08.2025, passed in MAC-369-2022, except wrong mentioning of relationship of the deceased with the claimants, as the deceased was son of the claimants No.01 & 02 and brother of the claimants No.03 & 04. Accordingly, the same be read in Para-02 & 06 of the order under review dt. 04.08.2025 respectively. 4. Consequently, with aforesaid modification in the order under review dt. 04.08.2025, this review petition is dismissed in terms of Rule 90(2) of the Rules of 2007 finding no sufficient cause for review of the order dt. 04.08.2025, passed in MAC-369-2022. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if