1 CGHC010270412025 2026:CGHC:41083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 684 of 2025 1 - Dayanidhi Nishad S/o Late Raghumani Nishad Aged About 37 Years R/o Mandir Para, Bhagbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. 2 - Minor Anurag Nishad S/o Dayanidhi Nishad Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian And Next Friend Appellant No. 1, R/o Mandir Para, Bhagbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. ... Applicants versus 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Herralal Patel R/o Pura Raghunathpur, Babatpur (Banaras), Uttar Pradesh- 221006. 2 - Jitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Banarasi Yadav Aged About 24 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Bhag Baisa, P.S. Chopan, Post - Obra, District Sonbhadra U.P. 3 - Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd. Local Branch Office Near Honda Showroom, Gamhariya Road, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh- 496331. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. Present is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.21 19:12:58 +0530 2 Procedure, 1908, seeking modification/correction of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court in MAC No. 2128 of 2019. 2. Vide order dated 14.07.2025, notices were directed to be issued to the respondents. However, the notice issued to respondent No.3- Insurance Company has been returned unserved with the endorsement that respondent No.3 refused to accept the notice. The notice issued to respondent No.2 has been served upon his mother. The service report in respect of the notice issued to respondent No.1 is still awaited. 3. Since the present matter pertains to modification of the order dated 25.07.2024 with respect to clerical mistake occurred in paragraph 12 of the said order regarding the quantum of the amount, even though the notice issued to respondent No.1 is awaited, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the present application. 4. While deciding the miscellaneous appeal filed by the claimants, the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs.7,90,000/- to Rs.15,64,880/-. In paragraph 12 of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court in MAC No.2128 of 2019, the appellants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.15,64,880/-, out of which an amount of Rs.7,90,000/- has already been paid. Thus, the appellants were entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.7,74,880/-. However, due to typographical error, in place of Rs.7,74,880/-, the amount has been typed as Rs.6,64,880/- in paragraph 12 of the order dated 25.07.2024. 3 5. After having gone through the calculation as carried out in paragraph 11 of the order dated 25.07.2024, this Court is satisfied that the amount of Rs.7,74,880/- has inadvertently been typed as Rs.6,64,880/- in paragraph 12 of the order, which needs to be corrected. 6. Accordingly, in paragraph 12 of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed in MAC No.2128 of 2019, the figure “Rs.6,64,880/-” shall be read as “Rs.7,74,880/-”. Rest part of the order shall remain intact. 7. The M.C.C. is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved