Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/951/2026 of SMT. HAMIN GHANKHAR Vs RAMGOPAL YADAV on 11 October 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 951 of 2026 1 - Smt. Hamin Ghankhar D/o Ghansyam Aged About 40 Years R/o Rewadhih, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ghansyam Ghankhar S/o Jhaduram Ghankhar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Rewadhih, Rajnandgaon
CGHC010399352026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 951 of 2026
1 - Smt. Hamin Ghankhar D/o Ghansyam Aged About 40 Years R/o Rewadhih, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ghansyam Ghankhar S/o Jhaduram Ghankhar, Aged About 48
Years R/o Rewadhih, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
3 - Nandani W/o Manoj Aged About 25 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
4 - Manisha D/o Ghansyam Aged About 23 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
5 - Nisha D/o Ghansyam Aged About 18 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
6 - Hathiyarin Bai Ghankhar W/o Late Jhaduram Aged About 70
Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
... Applicants
versus
1 - Ramgopal Yadav S/o Arjun Lal R/o Ward No. 04, Post Office Chowk, Dongargaon, Road, Chhurriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --(Owner)
2 - Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Beside, LIC Office Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh----(Insurer)
... Respondents
For Applicants
:
Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 :
Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2
:
Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicants have filed present MCC for modification of order dated 28.09.2026 passed in MAC No.2024/2023 with regard to ‘pay and recover’ of the award amount.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the appellants’ prayer for a direction to the insurer to pay and recover was duly recorded in paragraph 6 of the order dated 28.09.2026, the same has inadvertently not been considered in the operative paragraphs 16 and 17. He further submits that such modification would not alter the quantum of compensation or any other findings recorded in the order but would merely rectify an inadvertent omission. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the order dated 28.09.2026 may be suitably modified by incorporating a direction for pay and recover.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 have duly assisted the Court.
4. Upon perusal of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in
Claims Case No. 112/2021, it is evident that the learned Tribunal, having recorded a breach of the policy condition relating to the driving license, exonerated the insurance company from its liability. Further, in the order dated 28.09.2026 passed in MAC No.2024/2023, the submission seeking an appropriate direction for pay and recover was duly recorded in paragraph 6; however, no such direction was incorporated in the operative paragraph 16 of the order. Thus, the omission appears to be inadvertent on the face of the record, which need to be rectified, in the interest of justice.
5. Accordingly, the order dated 28.09.2026 passed in MAC No.2024/2023 is modified and para 16 of the said order be read as under :- “16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,89,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,03,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,89,800/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,13,960/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. As prayed by the appellants and in view of decision of Hon’ble Suprme Court in the matter of Rama Bai Vs. Amit Minerals through Incharge Officer/Competent Officer and Another1 governing the issue of breach of policy condition of driving license & pay and recover of amount of compensation, it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be paid by respondent No.2/Insurance Company in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.”
6. The present MCC is allowed and the order dated 28.09.2026 is modified to the extent indicated herein above. Rest of the condition of the order dated 28.09.2026 shall remain intact.
7. This order shall form part and parcel of order dated 28.09.2026 passed in MAC No.2024/2023.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge pekde 1 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2067