Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24272 (GAU)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. PRANTIK GAUTAM AND ORS

Review.Pet./233/2025 · 2025-10-26

Budi Habung

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010150252025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./233/2025 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT BHANGAGARH, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE VERSUS PRANTIK GAUTAM AND ORS S/O LATE ANIL SARMAH, R/O GYANPEETH, CHOLADHARA, P.O. JORHAT, P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785001, VILL. BHALUKEKHOWA, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN 788701 2:HEMADHAR BARUAH S/O SRI BHOGESWAR BARUAH R/O SUTAR GAON P.S. PULIBAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785006 3:BUDHIN BORA S/O SRI DEW BORA R/O ELENGMORA @ ALENGMORA P.S. PULIBAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785006 4:PARIJAT DEVI Page No.# 2/5 W/O SRI ANUP JYOTI BORA CARE OF RAMANI BORA R/O BOHOTIA GAON P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 7851 Advocate for the Petitioner : Tridib Kalita, MR. A KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 1. Heard T. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent/ claimant Nos. 1 and 4. 2. This is an application filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025, passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 282 of 2018. 3. The case of the review petitioner is that the appeal had been preferred challenging the award dated 14.09.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat in MAC Case No. 29/2012, whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 30,42,376/-(Rupees thirty lakhs forty two thousand three hundred and seventy six only) was awarded in favour of the respondent/ claimant and directed the appellant to pay the same within 90 days with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. Page No.# 3/5 23.07.2012. 4. The appeal was heard and disposed of whereby a total compensation of Rs. 30,42,376/-/-(Rupees thirty lakhs forty two thousand three hundred and seventy six only) was modified and enhanced to Rs. 36,76,430.92 (Rupees thirty six lakhs seventy six thousand four hundred thirty and paise ninety two only). 5. The petitioner submits that on receipt of the copy of the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025, an arithmetical error was noticed in the calculation of the interest payable on the modified amount of Rs. 36,76,430.92 (Rupees thirty six lakhs seventy six thousand four hundred thirty and paise ninety two only) for the relevant period namely “23.07.2012 till 14.09.2017 at the rate of 7%; from 15.05.2017 to 24.11.2023 at the rate of 8% and from 25.11.2023 to 29.04.2025 at the rate of 8% due to incorrect computation of the duration and the period of interest. 6. It is contented that owing to such calculation of error, the total amount was shown in the judgment Rs. 36,76,430.92 (Rupees thirty six lakhs seventy six thousand four hundred thirty and paise ninty two only) whereas the correct total amount payable after proper computation should be Rs. 34,93,214.00 (Rupees thirty four lakhs ninety three thousand two hundred fourteen only). 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the correction of the arithmetical error and has conceded that the recalculated amount of Rs. 34,93,214.00 (Rupees thirty four lakh ninety three thousand two hundred Page No.# 4/5 fourteen only) is correct. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, this court finds that the error sought to be corrected is purely arithmetical in nature. It has arisen from the miscalculation of the interest component, and not an error of law or reasoning in the judgment. Therefore, such an error is amenable to correction in exercise of the review jurisdiction o f this Court under XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. 9. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025, passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 282 of 2018 is herby reviewed to the limited extent of rectifying the arithmetical error in the computation of the total amount of compensation. 10. The total amount of compensation payable to the claimant/respondent stands corrected to Rs. 34,93,214.00 (Rupees thirty four lakh ninety three thousand two hundred fourteen only) instead of Rs. 36,76,430.92 (Rupees thirty six lakh seventy six thousand four hundred thirty and paise ninety two only) with interest as directed in the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025, passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 282 of 2018. 11. The rest part of the judgment and order shall remain unaltered. 12. The petitioner/ appellant is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount before the Registry of this Court within 4 weeks from Page No.# 5/5 today for onwards withdrawal by the respondents/ Claimants. 13. With the above modification, the review petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant