No. 5/20.11.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. R. K. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. Amitava Roy, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Heard Mr. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant who contends that Appellant does not dispute any other finding in the impugned judgement but he states that cost for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been considered twice in the impugned judgement and in support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee refers to last two paragraphs of page 7of the certified copy of the judgement.  The said portion runs as follows :

“According to the complaint the complainant expended Rs. 1,50,000/- approx. besides, he had to expend a lot for his treatment locally.  And he had to expend further life-long for his trouble.

Considering all these, we are of opinion that it will be justo to pass an order to give the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to meet the expenditure already caused and also future treatment”.

Relying to the aforesaid Mr. Mukherjee argues that while quantifying Rs. 2,00,000/- both the past expenditure and future treatment have been taken into consideration and, therefore, past expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000/- would not be considered in the ordering portion as a separate item.

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant – Respondent opposes the said prayer and insists that the said two sums have been mentioned in the ordering portion cautiously and it is not a mistake and, therefore, no correction is required.

We have considered the contention of the respective parties as also impugned judgement thoroughly.  It appears to us that the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken into consideration as an expenditure for treatment in Bangalore and further amount was taken into consideration for his treatment locally as also future treatment.  It is also appears from the second paragraph of the judgement under consideration that considering all the aforesaid aspects the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was assessed “to meet the expenditure already caused and also future treatment”.  Reading the entire judgement and appeal and the ordering portion we are of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is actually included in the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and, therefore, the repetition of the said of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the ordering portion appears to be a mistake crept in typographically.

We also find that the Appellant approached the Forum below also for such correction.  But as there is no power to review the judgement on merit, the Forum below had no other option but to dismiss the application.

Considering all the aforesaid materials we are of the opinion that the impugned judgement requires a correction and the total amount payable by the Appellant to the Complainant is Rs. 2,60,000/- including the cost of Rs. 10,000/-, cost of medical treatment both past and future of Rs. 2,00,000/- and compensation Rs. 50,000/-.  Appeal is thus allowed and the impugned judgement is corrected to the extent indicated hereinabove and the impugned judgement stands thus modified.  Appellant is directed to pay Rs. 2,60,000/- within a period of 60 days to the Complainant and in default Complainant – Respondent will be entitled to recover the same in accordance with law along with interest @ 9% for the period of default.