Order No.4 dtd.23.11.2022

                        This is an application for review under section 40 of C.P.Act,2019. Present R.A. No. 5/2022 filed by Jdr being aggrieved by an order passed on dt. 19/10/2022 by this Commission.

                        The review Petitioner prayed for recall the order passed by this Commission on two heads on which the Jdr prejudiced. This Commission while disposed off the C.C.Case No. 18/2020 granted mental agony undergone by Complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- so also interest 18% P.A. which was excessive & the Honbl’e Commission may kindly recall with a modification to Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also interest 10% P.A instead of 18% for interest of justice. Unless the Commission modify or correct the same the Jdr will suffer irreparable loss and the same if not corrected cause miscarriage of justice.

                    On the above prayer in the R.A. and averment therein we admitted the same issued notice to the DHR. The DHR/Complainant appeared in person and contented that he has no objection if there will be any modification/correction of topographical error corrected by this Commission. We heard both the parties and the grounds urged in the application in support of the review therein.

                    Before recall the order we must discuss the legal provision, where can a Commission can recall/review its previous order. Sec-141-CPc provides for a substantive power of review by a Civil Court & the limitation on procedural condition contained in order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a Judgement or order could be sought:-

From the discovery of new & important evidence which after due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant and the same not produced when the order/Judgement was passed or an account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason Sec-362 CrPc provided when no Court, when it has signed its judgement or final order disposing of a case, shall alter review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

                        We have gone through an order already passed and the prayer of the review application, found one additional zero instead of Rs. 10,000/- it was Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and instead of 10% it was 18%. There is a topographical  clerical mistake or error which is evident per se from the record  of the Case and does not require details examination, scrutiny & elucidation neither of facts or of the legal position . The error does not require long debate and process of reasoning, we do not substitute the original order in fact & law to establish a new and do not substitute the same which is only possible in case of appeal. We are only correcting the topographical/clerical error inadvertently in the former order & no injustice caused to the Complainant when the same error is corrected. In our opinion the topographical error can be corrected by deleting one zero from Rs. 1,00,000/- and secondly 8 from 18% instead of 10 it was typed as 18. Such correction of error evident on the face of the record & there shall be no miscarriage of justice cause to either parties.

O R D E R

                   After scrutinizing the review application & the contention of the Dhr/Complainant it is a fit case to recall/review the order passed earlier and it is hereby directed to modify the compensation amount for mental agony to be Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the interest shall  be 10% instead of 18% and further part of the previous order remained unchanged, intact.

                      On the above observation/direction the review application is allowed.

                                        Sd/-                                 Sd/-

                                      Member                          President