1 2026:CGHC:4806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 424 of 2025 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Peni Sula Business Park, Tower-A, 15 Janpad Rao Padam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Branch Office-403, 4th Floor, D.B. City, Corporate Park, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Samarinbai Wd/o Late Lalit Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhatbai D/o Late Lalit Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Devki D/o Late Lalit Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemcharan S/o Late Lalit Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Samarinbai Wd/o Late Lalit Sahu, R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.30 18:56:32 +0530 2 5 - Kumari Rameshwari D/o Late Lalit Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Samarinbai Wd/o Late Lalit Sahu, R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Punimati Wd/o Late Firtu Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Lokraj Sahu S/o Soanu Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 8 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Khajri, Thana Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh … Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the review petitioner on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 2. On due consideration the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01/2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 71 days in preferring the review petition is hereby condoned. 3. The review petition is heard finally. 3 4. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by this Court in MAC No. 605/2017, which was preferred against the award dated 21.02.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 80/2015, with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Order 47 Rule (1) CPC read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 90 (1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 and in exercise thereof review the Order dated 28.07.2025 passed in M.A (C).No.605/2017 and decide the company appeal in order to do complete justice.” 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that this Court had not decided the appeal preferred by the review petitioner and had disposed of the same without any decision either in favour of or against the insurance company. He further submits that the review petitioner is the insurance company of the tractor bearing Registration No.CG-13/LA/2770, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the deceased, who was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, falling and succumbing to his injuries. 6. It is submitted that the award dated 21.02.2017 was challenged before this Court for enhancement of the compensation amount and was registered as MAC No. 659/2017. While deciding both the appeals 4 together, this Court did not decide the appeal preferred by the review petitioner, albeit partly allowed the claimant’s appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that this Court, while passing the impugned order, has not dealt with the contentions raised by the review petitioner that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, which constituted a clear violation of the insurance policy, relieving the company of liability to satisfy the award. The review petitioner has no grievance against the impugned order insofar as it relates to allowing MAC No. 659/2017 filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 for enhancement of compensation. It is respectfully submitted that this Court has the power under review to correct an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 28.07.2025, as under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, a judgment or order is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. This Court, vide order dated 28.07.2025, had originally passed the order in the following terms:- “25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e., wife, children, and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,18,375/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.” 5 8. Considering the grounds raised by the review petitioner, namely that the appeal filed by the insurance company (MAC No. 605/2017) was not decided on merits and that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger, in clear violation of the insurance policy, the Court is of the opinion that the said paragraph requires modification. 9. Accordingly, paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment dated 28.07.2025 is hereby rewritten as follows:- “25. In the result, MAC No. 605/2017 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. MAC No. 659/2017 filed by the claimants/appellants, i.e., wife, children, and mother of the deceased, is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,18,375/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent, and the remaining conditions shall remain intact.” 10. The review petition is accordingly allowed. 11. A copy of this order be placed along with the records of MAC No.605/2017. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh