1 CGHC010534222025 2026:CGHC:32268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 54 of 2026 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Ground Floor Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently At- I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 5th Floor, Skypark, Opp. Banthia Nursing Home, Conal Road, Raipur- 492001 ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Amrika Bai Dewangan W/o Late Ghanshyam Singh Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 659, Ward No.- 16, Chandkhuri, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Loknath Dewangn S/o Late Ghanshyam Singh Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 659, Ward No.- 16, Chandkhuri, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Neetu Dewangan D/o Late Ghanshyam Singh Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 659, Ward No.- 16, Chandkhuri, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Budhyarin Dewangan (Deleted ) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-07-2025. 5 - Shubham Dewangan S/o Dilip Dewangan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Tilai, Near Daihan Sandha Mandir, Ward No.- 6, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver). 6 - Dilip Dewangan S/o Chabi Dewangan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tilai, Near Daihan Sanha Mandir, Ward No.- 6, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Owner). 7 - Sitaram Dewangan S/o Biselal Dewangan Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Tilai, Near Daihan Sandha Mandir Ward No. 6, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver). Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 8 - Kameshwar Dewangan S/o Sitaram Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Tilai, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicants No.1 to 3/Claimants For Non-applicants No.5 & 6 : : Mr. Swapnil Thawane, Advocate Ms. Unnati Sinha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. The instant MCC has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.11.2025 passed in MAC No. 480 of 2021 (Smt. Amrita Bai Dewangan & Ors. v. Shubham Dewangan & Ors.), seeking modification of the said judgment to the extent of the liability fastened therein. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the against the award passed by the learned IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 377/2019, the claimants preferred an appeal (MAC No. 480/2021) seeking enhancement of compensation. He would further submit that the apportionment of liability of the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal was not challenged in the said appeal. He would further contend that due to inadvertence in MAC No. 480/2021, this Court, in paragraph 1 as well as in the operative part of the judgment, observed that the Insurance Company has been directed to make payment of the entire compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimants, and the same was reiterated in the concluding paragraph No. 7. 3 He would argue that under the award passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby liability has been fastened to the extent of 50% upon the owner and driver of one of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-08-N-9638, and the remaining 50% liability was fastened upon the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle i.e. CG-04-MK-3167. He would submit that the claimants have already recovered 50% of the compensation amount from the Insurance Company pursuant to the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal; thus, he would pray that the judgment passed by this Court in MAC No. 480/2021 dt. 10.11.2025 may be modified. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose the submission made by counsel for the applicant and submit that the in MAC No. 480/2021, judgment was passed in the presence of the Insurance Company and no objection was raised by the counsel appearing on its behalf. He would further submit that the claimants have right to recover the compensation amount from any of the parties upon whom liability has been fastened. He would contend that the present application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 & 6 would oppose the submission made by counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From a perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No.377/2019 would reveal that 50% liability was fastened upon the owner and driver of one of the vehicle bearing registration No.CG-08-N-9638, and the remaining 50% liability was fastened upon the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle i.e. CG-04-MK-3167. However, while passing the judgment in MAC No. 480/2021, this Court fastened the entire liability with the Insurance Company, which is contrary to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The order passed in MAC No. 480/2021 is modified to the extent that liability of 50% of the enhanced 4 award amount shall be borne by the owner and driver of one of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-08-N-9638, whereas the liability of remaining 50% of the enhanced award amount shall be borne by the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-MK-3167. The order passed in the present MCC shall form part of the judment passed in MAC No. 480/2021. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim