1 2026:CGHC:1781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 421 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kirti Sinha Wd/o Late Deenu Sinha Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ghusera, Post Jatkanhar, P. S. Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Kaushilya Bai W/o Ramesh Sinha Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ghusera, Post Jatkanhar, P. S. Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramesh Sinha S/o Late Amoli Sinha Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Ghusera, Post Jatkanhar, P. S. Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Project Officer (Icds) Integrated Woman And Child Development Service Project, Chhuriya-1, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lekhram Sahu S/o Bhagwat Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Khuta Chhuriya Ward No. 14, P. S. Chhuriya, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. This review petition has been filed by the applicants under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review and modification of the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 2018/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.1/State against the award dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 136/2016 was partly allowed by modifying the contributory negligence from 30:70 to 50:50. 2. The grievance of the applicants is confined to the manner in which the compensation has been recalculated in paragraph 8 of the order dated 03.11.2025. According to the applicants, while modifying the ratio of contributory negligence, this Court inadvertently applied the revised ratio on the reduced amount of compensation of Rs. 5,74,000/-, instead of applying it on the original loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 7,20,000/-, thereby resulting in a double deduction, which constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 22 of the award dated 31.01.2018, 3 had assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 7,20,000/- before applying contributory negligence. Thereafter, holding the deceased negligent to the extent of 30%, the Tribunal reduced the amount to Rs. 5,04,000/- and further added conventional heads namely loss of estate of Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/-, thereby determining the total compensation at Rs. 5,74,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Learned counsel submits that when the respondent-State preferred an appeal, this Court, vide order dated 03.11.2025, modified the contributory negligence from 30:70 to 50:50. However, while doing so, this Court applied the 50% deduction on the total amount of Rs. 5,74,000/-, which was already a reduced figure after applying contributory negligence by the Tribunal. According to learned counsel, this has resulted in applying contributory negligence twice, which is impermissible in law. It is contended that once the contributory negligence ratio was modified, the correct and lawful method was to apply the revised ratio of 50:50 on the original loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 7,20,000/-. Accordingly, the applicants would be entitled to Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the error committed in the order dated 03.11.2025 is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not require any elaborate reasoning or re- 4 appreciation of evidence. Such an error squarely falls within the scope of review jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the award was also passed under Section 166, and the inadvertent reference to Section 163-A in earlier proceedings may also be corrected in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that the scope of review under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. It is contended that the applicants are seeking reconsideration of the compensation, which, according to the State, may amount to sitting in appeal over the earlier judgment. However, learned State counsel fairly submits that if this Court, upon examination of the record, comes to the conclusion that while modifying the contributory negligence, the deduction has inadvertently been applied twice on the compensation amount, the same may be corrected to the limited extent permissible in review jurisdiction. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record of the appeal as well as the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. From a perusal of paragraph 22 of the award dated 31.01.2018, it 5 is clear that the learned Tribunal had assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 7,20,000/- prior to applying contributory negligence. Thereafter, applying 30% negligence on the part of the deceased, the Tribunal reduced the amount to Rs. 5,04,000/- and added conventional heads, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 5,74,000/-. This Court, while deciding the appeal on 03.11.2025, modified the contributory negligence to 50:50. However, while recalculating the compensation in paragraph 8 of the order, the revised ratio was applied on the amount of Rs. 5,74,000/-, which itself was a figure arrived at after applying contributory negligence by the Tribunal. This has indeed resulted in double deduction on account of contributory negligence. The correct approach, after modifying the contributory negligence ratio, ought to have been to apply the revised ratio on the original loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal, i.e. Rs. 7,20,000/-, and thereafter add the amounts awarded under conventional heads. Such an error is manifest, self-evident and apparent on the face of the record and does not require any detailed examination of facts or law. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the present case falls within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. 9. The order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 6 2018/2018 is reviewed and modified to the extent that the contributory negligence ratio of 50:50 shall be applied on the loss of dependency of Rs. 7,20,000/- as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the applicants shall be entitled to compensation under loss of dependency Rs. 7,20,000/- × 50% = Rs. 3,60,000/- 10. Except for the above modification, the remaining part of the order dated 03.11.2025 shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE