IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.280 of 2017 1. Padmabati Behera 2. Kumari Sarmistha Behera 3. Barun Kumar Behera … Petitioners Mr. B. Baugh, Advocate -versus- 1. Manas Kumar Mohanty 2. Purastam Barik 3. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co, Ltd. represented though Legal Manager, BBSR …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. A. Khan, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 02.05.2026 I. A. No.916 of 2026 17. 1. It is apt to note that MACA No.280 of 2027, at the instance of the complainant and MACA No.278 of 2017, at the instance of the insurance company were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27.02.2026. 2. This I.A. has been preferred by the Respondent No.3 in MACA No.280 of 2017 and appellant in MACA No.278 of 2017 seeking the following relief:- “The petitioner therefore most respectfully prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow the LA and modify the judgment dated 27.02.2026 to the extent that the total compensation amount would be Rs.17,20,000/- instead of Rs.18,85,000/- in .Para-17 of the judgment, similarly in Para-18 of the judgment wherein it has been held that the petitioner is liable to pay further sum of Rs. 12.20,000/- be modified to Rs.10,55,000/-. Further the direction to kept the balance 50% as fixed deposit in Para-21 of the impugned judgment be clarified as to in whose favour the said 50% shall be kept in fixed deposit on the grounds stated above.” 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the quantification as in Paragraph-17 is incorrect. 4. To fortify his submission, it is asserted that Rs.1,65,000/- under the heading “Annual Income" ought not to be added to the total compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant opposes the prayer as made in the I.A.. 6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the relief as sought for by the learned counsel for the Petitioners amounts to a clerical error, which can be corrected. Hence, the I.A. stands rejected. It shall be open for the counsel for the Insurance Company to take recourse to law and file an appropriate application, if he so aggrieved by the calculation as mentioned in paragraph-17. 7. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina