Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that on an application filed by the petitioner, the State Commission had held the insurance company, i.e., the petitioner herein and the respondent No.2 – Union Bank of India, as jointly and severally responsible to make the payment to the complainant/respondent No.1 – B. Shankar.  Petitioner insurance company moved an I.A. No.1030/2010 in F.A. No.106/2007 before the State Commission to correct the operative portion of the order dated 29.10.2009, directing the insurance company to pay the amount along with the respondent Bank, on the ground that it was a typographical error.  The said application has been accepted by the State Commission vide its order dated 13.4.2010 by observing as under :

“It was held that the bank was deficient in its service and therefore directed it to pay the amount as well as compensation.  Since the deficiency if any on the part of bank has been considered, however, in the operative portion, by mistake it was mentioned, ‘opposite parties’ to pay the amount instead of saying ‘opposite party No.1 bank’ had to pay the amount, we are of the opinion that it is only a typographical mistake.  Accordingly, it  could be corrected directing opposite party No.1 bank to pay the amount.”

          Since the petitioner has been absolved of the liability to pay to the respondent, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.