1 MCC No. 639 of 2026 CGHC010250682026 2026:CGHC:29616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 639 of 2026  Shivbachni Wd/o Late Rudra Bahadur Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Turripani, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1. Devbali S/o Late Rudra Bahadur Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Turripani, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.). 2. Smt. Sitakunwar D/o Late Rudra Bahadur Singh, Aged About 29 Years, (W/o Mahendra Pratap Singh) R/o Village Vangaon, Police Station And Tahsil Odgi, District -Surajpur (C.G.). 3. Tajbali Singh S/o Late Rudra Bahadur Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Turripani, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.). 4. Iswar Singh S/o Late Rudra Bahadur Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Turripani, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.). 5. Rambali Singh S/o Late Rudra Bahadur Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Turripani, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.). 6. Lalman S/o Jaikaran, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Nawgai, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle). ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MCC No. 639 of 2026 7. Rajesh Kumar Toppo S/o Late Shivprakash Toppo, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Pahadpara Katgodi, Post Katgodi Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District -Koriya (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle). 8. Branch Manager Iffco Tokyao General Insurance Co. Ltd, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle). ... Respondents For Applicant :- Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.8 :- Ms. Shrejal Gupta appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocates. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 14.07.2026 1. By way of this MCC the applicant seeking modification in judgment passed by this Court 21.08.2025 in MAC No.649 of 2022 (Annexure A/2). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to inadvertence in line 4 of para 9 of the aforesaid judgment the word “the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of 2,33,752/-” ₹ has wrongly been typed, whereas, it ought to have been “appellant No.1/Shivbachni is held to be entitled for an additional amount of 2,33,752/-” ₹ in light of para 31(अ) of Claim Case No.5/2021 passed on 06.08.2021 (Annexure A/1). 3. Since it is an typographical error, it is ordered that the words “the appellants are held entitled for an additional 3 MCC No. 639 of 2026 amount of ₹2,33,752/-” occurred in line 4 of para 9 of judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed in MAC No.649 of 2022, be read as “appellant No.1/Shivbachni is held to be entitled for an additional amount of 2,33,752/ ₹ -, in light of para 31(अ) of Claim Case No.5/2021 passed on 06.08.2021 (Annexure A/1). 4. In view of the above, the instant MCC is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit