Today Miscellaneous Application is fixed for order.

The present Miscellaneous Application has been directed by the complainant alleging that the complainant had filed a complaint styled as Sh. Virender Singh Vs. M/s Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr., before this Commission, which was registered as consumer complaint No. 02 of 2013. After hearing both the parties, this Commission has allowed the complaint on dated 22.05.2023 and passed the following order:-

“Accordingly, consumer complaint is allowed. The opposite party   No. 1 shall pay Rs. 17,31,375/-, i.e. 75% of IDV Rs. 23,08,500/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint dated 21.08.2018 till its actual realization within 30 days from the date of judgment.

It is further ordered that the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 4,11,342/- as repairing charges alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum (in regard to the accident dated 23.07.2011) from the date of filing of the complaint case, i.e. 21.08.2018 till its actual realization within 30 days from the date of judgment. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation from the opposite party No. 1.”

2.       It is averred in Miscellaneous Application that as per the order of the Commission, the complainant is entitled to get interest from the date of complaint, i.e. 13.03.2013, however, it appears that due to typing mistake, the date of filing of the complaint has been mentioned as 21.08.2018 in the order. Hence, in such circumstances, it is proper and just that such typing mistake be rectified in the order as 13.03.2013 in place of 21.08.2018. 

3.       We have heard learned counsel for the applicant - complainant. It is true that the above complaint was decided by this Commission on dated 22.05.2023. The main question for consideration before us is as to whether there was any typing mistake in the judgment dated 22.05.2023 or not?

4.       We have also summoned the original record “Consumer Complaint No. 02 of 2013” from the office / record room. A perusal of the entire order sheet has revealed that the complaint was submitted before the State Commission on dated 19.03.2013 with the requisite fee through draft and a report of the office was noted down in the order sheet, thereafter on dated 20.03.2013 our predecessor has issued notice to the opposite parties, fixing 03.05.2013 for filing the preliminary objections, if any, with regard to the limitation aspect of the matter. It means on that date, i.e. 20.03.2013, our predecessor had not registered the complaint case because there was some legal issue in regard to the limitation period, whether the complaint was filed within limitation or not. Thereafter, the notices were issued for the hearing of limitation issue. On dated 03.05.2013, the opposite party No. 1 has filed Vakalatnama and learned counsel for the complainant was directed to take steps for issuing notice to the opposite party No. 2 within three days and fixing 18.07.2013. Respective order sheets dated 18.07.2013, 22.10.2013, 05.02.2014, 07.04.2014 and 09.06.2014  have not revealed that the steps for service of notice against the opposite party No. 2 have been taken by the complainant.

5.       A perusal of the order sheet dated 10.03.2015 has revealed that acknowledgment due pertaining to opposite party No. 2 has been received in the office, which was kept on record. An order sheet dated 21.08.2018 has revealed that on such date, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has appeared. Meantime, the opposite party No. 1 has submitted its written statement and the evidence in regard to the limitation issue on record. On dated 21.08.2018, the opposite party No. 2 has not appeared. After hearing the legal issue at the time of admission, our predecessor was pleased to admit the consumer complaint and the next date was fixed as 24.09.2018.  Thus, a perusal of the order sheets has shown that on dated 19.03.2013, the complaint was filed, which was kept for hearing on the limitation point vide order dated 20.03.2013.

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the complaint was filed on dated 13.03.2013, but a perusal of the entire order sheets has revealed that the complaint was never filed on dated 13.03.2013 in this Commission and the first order sheet starts from 19.03.2013.  Thus, the averments of the learned counsel for the complainant alleged in the present miscellaneous application has proved untrue and incorrect that the complaint was received in the office on dated 13.03.2013. 

7.       Apart from it, it is to mention that as per the contention of the complainant – applicant if the complaint was filed on dated 13.03.2013, then there should be some hearing on the admission point on the same day and the complaint should be registered and admitted, but first order sheet dated 19.03.2013 and the subsequent order sheets dated 20.03.2013 till dated 12.07.2018 did not reveal that our predecessor had ever heard on admission point prior to the date 21.08.2018 and has passed an order to admit the consumer complaint.

8.       In addition to, it is worthy to note that in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no such provision to correct the typing mistake occurred in the judgment.

9.       Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted a cited case law in the case of Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2005, Vidyawati Gupta and Ors. Vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak and Ors. decided on 03.02.2006. 

10.     We have perused the above cited case law, which pertains to the civil suit filed under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  Here it is mention that Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has provided such provision which is reproduced as under:-

“Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.”

but in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is no such provision to rectify the typing, clerical and arithmetical mistake in the judgment after its pronouncement. We have perused the judgment enclosed herewith and we are of the opinion that no clerical mistake has been committed about the date of commencement of interest in the judgment, hence the contentions alleged in the Miscellaneous Application is not sustainable / tenable, so in such circumstances, the present Miscellaneous Application is liable to be dismissed.

11.     Miscellaneous Application is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room alongwith copy of this Order.