The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to allow a review petition to rectify an apparent mistake in the calculation of compensation, despite rejecting challenges to specific findings.

Arun Bhansali, J.

This review petition has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking review of judgment dated 16.1.2009, whereby while allowing the appeal of the claimants, this Court enhanced the compensation. It was also held by the Court that the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of the amount awarded by the Tribunal by reversing the finding on issue No.3 returned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the insurance company was exonerated from its liability.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the review petitioner that the insurance company could not remain present at the time of hearing of SBCMA No.234/2001 and the order passed by the Court requires to be reviewed, inasmuch as, the reversal of finding on issue No.3 is apparently against the record of the case.

3. It was also submitted that this Court enhanced the compensation by way of increasing the multiplier from 11 to 15, which in fact, results in a enhanced compensation of Rs. 96,000/- only, however, inadvertently in the operative portion of the judgment it has been mentioned that there is an increase of Rs. 1,36,000/- in the total award, which is an error apparent on the face of record, which requires to be rectified.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants that the order does not require any interference and that there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to call for any review by this Court. It was also submitted that the award as passed by this Court, whereby the total award was enhanced by Rs. 1,36,000/- might have already been paid to the claimants.

5. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the enhanced amount has not been paid to the claimants so far.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as challenge to the reversal of finding on issue No.3 is concerned, the said challenge does not fall within the parameters of Order 47, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as, by way of review the petitioner cannot be heard in appeal against the order sought to be reviewed. On that count, the said ground in review petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, rejected.

8. However, as far as the ground relating to the calculation is concerned, the same appears to be an apparent mistake. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.1.2009 reads as under :-

So far as the award of compensation is concerned, the deceased was of the age of 45 years and his income was assessed to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and ?rd has been deducted which the deceased would have incurred on himself. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased being a young person of 45 years of age, the multiplier of 11 has wrongly been applied whereas even as per the Schedule appended to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 15 is provided. The deceased was the driver of heavy vehicle and looking to his age, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Therefore, the compensation applying multiplier of 15 comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of loss of income to the claimants who are his wife, 3 daughters and 1 son. Rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal is kept as it is. In view of the above finding, there is increase of Rs. 1,36,000/- in the total award. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of claim petition.

9. A bare reading of the above operative portion of the order reveals that the claimants were awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- towards the loss of income whereas in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by applying a multiplier of 11, the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,64,000/- and, therefore, the difference would be (3,60,000 - 2,64,000) Rs. 96,000/- only and, consequently, the observation made in the operative portion that in view of the above finding, there is increase of Rs