Allowed

Smti. Ruby Sarma and 2 Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 Jul 2018I.A.(Civil)/561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to correct clerical errors in an originating order. The High Court accepted the application, amended specific typographical errors in case citations and cross-objection numbers, and ordered a fresh computation of compensation with corrected interest rates.

What did the court decide?

Correction of clerical errors in the previous judgment including compensation amount, case citations, and interest computation.

Smti. Ruby Sarma and 2 Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010033842018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 561/2018 IN MACAPP. 6/2011(D/O) CO 12/2014(D/O)

¶6

1:SMTI. RUBY SARMA AND 2 ORS W/O- LT BHABATARAN SARMA, PERMANENT R/O- VILLRUKMININAGAR, SRIMANTA PATH, P.S. DISPUR, GHY-6. DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR

¶9

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002, AND REGIONAL AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT SEVERAL PLACES INCLUDING A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GHY-7

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M TALUKDAR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DUTTA

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 12.07.2018

¶15

Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. C. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for opposite party.

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

This application has been filed for correction of several errors that has crept in the judgment and order dated 17.01.2018 passed by this Court in MACApp. 6/2011 and C.O. No. 12/2014.

¶18

It is seen that in the original record, the said judgment was delivered in respect of the appeal i.e. MACApp. 6/2011 as well as in respect of CO 12/2014. However, when the certified copy was issued there was no mention of CO 12/2014. This Court has been informed that under the new computer programme introduced, the certified copy of cross objection is required to be obtained separately as a separate Cross-Objection is registered. Insofar as the other errors that has been pointed out, this Court having gone through the same, is inclined to accept the clerical errors that has been appeared in the order and the same is required to be corrected by a fresh computation of compensation as indicated by the applicant in para 7 of this application. Accordingly, the following corrections are made in connection with the above referred judgment and order dated 17.01.2018:

¶19

(i) In page No.2, in 4^th line of paragraph No.2, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has been written by mistake as “Rs.6,02,000/-, but the same ought to have been “Rs.8,02,000/-.

¶20

(ii) In page No.2, in 3^rd line of paragraph No.3, the Cross-Objection number has been written by mistake as “12/2004”, but the same ought to have been “12/2014”.

¶21

(iii) In page No.4, in 2^nd and 3^rd line of paragraph No. 11, the case law as referred has been written as “Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Authority & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 191, but the same ought to have been “Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121”.

¶22

(iv) In page No.4, sub-paragraph No. e) (headline) of paragraph No. 12, it has been written as “Point of determination No. 1 and 4”, but the same ought to have been “Point of determination No. a) and d):” and again, in 1^st line of sub-paragraph No. c of e), it has been written as “The point of determination

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

No. 1 and 4”, but the same ought to have been “The point of determination No. a) and d)”.

¶25

(v) In page No. 5, sub-paragraph No. f), it has been written as “The point of determination No. 2 and 3”, but the same ought to have been “The point of determination No. b) and c). Again ”in page No.8, 3^rd line from the top, it has been written as “The point of determination No. 2 and 3”, but the same ought to have been “The point of determination No. b) and c)”.

¶26

(vi) In page No.9, the case law as referred has been written in serial No. V. as “Muni Rout & Anr.” instead of “Minu Rout & Anr.” and in serial No. xv., it has been written as “Sandhya Ran Debbarma & Ors.” instead of “Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors.”.

¶27

(vii) In page No.10, in serial No. j. of Sub-paragraph No. k) of paragraph No. 12, by mistake, it has been written as “Award would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.12.2006 (i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition) to 13.08.2013 @ 7% and from 14.08.2013 till realization of the award @ 9% p.a.”, but the same is required to be written as “Award would carry interest @ 7% p.a. from 20.12.2006 (i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition) to 13.08.2013 and @ 9% p.a. from 14.08.2013 till realization of the award”.

¶28

(viii) In page No. 10, in 3^rd line of Sub-paragraph No. I) of paragraph No. 12, by mistake, the expression/phrase i.e. “in the event” has been written which is required to be deleted.

¶29

(ix) The modified computation of compensation is required to be read as follows:

¶30

a. Monthly income Rs.24,526/-,

¶31

(after deduction of 1/3^rd for personal expenses)= Rs.16,350/-

¶32

b. Add 15% towards future prospects = Rs.2,452/c. (a+b) = Rs.18,802/-

¶33

d. Computation = Rs.18,802 X 12 X 9 =Rs.20,30616/-

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

e. Loss of Estate [as per Pranay Sethi (supra)]= Rs.15,000/-

¶36

f. Loss of consortium [as per Pranay Sethi (supra)]= Rs.40,000/g. Funeral expenses [as per Pranay Sethi (supra)]= Rs.15,000/-

¶37

h. (d + e + f + g) = Rs.21,00,616/-

¶38

(Rupees twenty one lakh six hundred and sixteen only).

¶39

i. Less applicable income tax to be deducted while paying the award. j. Award would carry interest @ 7% p.a. from 20.12.2006 (i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition) to 13.08.2013 and @ 9% p.a from 14.08.2013 till realization of the award.

¶40

This order shall be read as a part of the said judgment and order dated 17.01.2018 passed by this Court in MACApp. 6/2011 and C.O. No. 12/2014.

¶41

This application stands allowed.

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Ruby Sarma and 2 Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Ruby Sarma and 2 Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Nitai Mudok Vs Shri Suren Saikia @ Surendra Saikia and 4 Ors.

Bhaskar Roy Choudhury and Anr. Vs Hironmoy Sekhar Das Astopati @ Roy Astopati and 2 ORS11.00

Shri Nitai Mudok Vs Sri Suren Saikia @ Surendra Saikia and 4 Ors.

MD Nizamul Hoque @ Mizamul Hoque Vs MD Bazlur Rahman @ Baznur Rahman

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Priyanka Devi and 4 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Taibur Rahman and Anr.