Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13382 (CHH)

DROPATI v. HOMENCHAND CHURENDRA

MCC/231/2026 · 2026-03-11

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:11775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 231 of 2026 1. Dropati W/o Late Santosh Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Sakshi D/o Late Santosh Kumar Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Dropati, R/o Village- Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Purvi D/o Late Santosh Kumar Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Dropati, R/o Village- Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ramadheen S/o Alore Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. Bimla Bai W/o Ramadheen Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Homenchand Churendra S/o Kamta Prasad Churendra Aged About 22 Years R/o Rengakathera, P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Driver 2. Kamta Prasad Churendra S/o Shri Kedarnath Churendra Aged About 45 Years R/o Rengakathera, P.S. And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Owner 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, Near L.I.C. Officer, Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Insurer ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.03 .2026 1. Mr. Patakar would submit that due to a typographical mistake, the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.12 15:54:11 +0530 2 Insurance Company has been directed to pay only the additional/enhanced amount to the claimants, whereas the direction should have been to Insurance Company to make payment of entire amount of compensation including enhanced amount. 2. Mr. Gulati, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would not dispute this fact. It is contended by Mr. Gulati that Insurance Company has already deposited 96,000/- with interest component. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Patankar, it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall make payment of entire amount of compensation including additional/enhanced amount. Para 8 of the judgment passed in MAC No. 41 of 2024 dated 15.12.2025 is modified up to extent indicated herein-above. 5. Any amount deposited by Insurance Company shall be adjusted against the entire amount. 6. This order shall be part of the judgment passed in MAC No. 41 of 2024. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant