gw'gi F RFM‘M figmg'v'l/ fl V E i x ) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. lgqé OF 2011 PETITIONER 7 The New India Assurance NON-APPLICANT No. 3 Company limited, through its divisional manager, the New 'Indian Assurance company Limited, Second Floor, Ram Trade Center, opp. Rajeev P1aza,~ Bus JLStand Road, Bilaspur ”saw/Mae ( ”Juwte/ C Q.)/ [fa/ma {fr/6»? «aatyegyew far [am/Avg Jy/M /V%% VERSUS "‘ 7”” day) 5y 'peWw/ Fwy: Vi VivM'm/aww/a ym-«M a//ft€— Ax ax y‘IMWMI 7%5, ya/vdyl/yy/ “fav 47’ [(—¢/ k ”a? a/e/x/ RESPONDENTS /'1. Smt. Rambati W/o— Late APPLICAMTS ¢ Shriram Yadav, aged about 45 years, Caste — Raut /2’. Kumari Priyanka Yadaw D/o— Late Shriram Yadav, ’ aged ,1» about ll years, Caste — Raut ( Being minor represented through mother Smt. Rambati.) Both R/o— Near Harampara Petrol Pump, Gidam, Disrict— Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. :3 RC we Ranjeet Kumar Yadav S/o— Rajaram yadav aged about 2O L‘\ years, Cast Raut, Near Harampara Petrol Pump ,Gidam, Disrict- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 8 is Johitram T‘umreti R/ o— Jhuniyapara Kanker Hal- kadam Tikrapara, Gidam District- Dantewada ( C.G.) IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ix .__._ ‘ ‘ R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 227 PR No. 1087 6f 2011 w? (xvi) 29% (I PETITIONER E : ’I:he New India Assurance Company Limited. VERSUS ESPONDENTS Smt. Rambati 85 others 1WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA! (SB: I-Ion'ble Mr. N.K. Agatwal, J.) ‘ resent : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. - ORAL ORDER (Bassed on 19.04.2011) 1. i Heard on IA No. 1, application for exemption Ii‘om filing fresh certified copy of annexuie P/4. On due consideration, the application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted from iiling fresh certified copy of annexure P/4. i Shri Sourabh Shanna, learned counsel appearing for ‘ the petitioner submits that compromise application was a filed before the Lok Adalat, Dantewada by claimants and NA No. 2 i.e. owner of the vehicle as the vehicle was not insured but due to typographical error Lok Adalat, Dantewada has passed the award against the petitioner/insurancepompany. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this court, mistake as R P m 2} - alleged is of clerical in nature and the same can be corrected by the concerned Lok Adala‘t. In View of above, appropriate remedy for the petitiogner would be to apply before the concerned Lok Adalat for correction of clerical mistake occurred in the award passed by it. Wlth the above observation,. this petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ' V e Sd/~ ‘ N. K.Agarwal i ; Judg