[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Arvind Kumar Aherwar And Others on 16 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2018:UHC:1566
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.600 of 2015
16th December, 2025
Rajesh Verma ..........Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar Aherwar and others ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the appellant, through video
conferencing.
Mr. Rakshit Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This review application has been filed by the
applicant on the grounds that there was a calculation
mistake while computing the compensation in A.O. No.600
of 2015 arising out of M.A.C.T. No.281 of 2012, passed by
this court vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2018.
2. The learned counsel for the review applicant
submitted that the Court had committed a grave error
while calculating the compensation, whereby the court
recorded the claimant's monthly loss at ₹10,000/- and
applied the correct multiplier of 17 (the claimant being 28
years old), however it failed to first convert the monthly
income into annual income before applying the multiplier
which resulted into awarding a meager compensation to the
applicant. This grave error can be seen in the paragraphs
13 & 14 of the said judgment.
3. The same has also been admitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 - Insurance
Company.
2018:UHC:1566
4. I have perused paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the
judgment under review and have found that there has been
some calculation mistake in the order. Hence, there is
indeed an apparent mistake in the calculation of the
compensation.
5. Accordingly, the review application is allowed
only to the extent of correcting the calculation mistake.
Rest of the grounds for recovering the judgment and order
dated 07.03.2018 are rejected for the reasons that the
revisional court be permitted in disguise of an appeal.
6. The correct calculation should have been as
follows:-
In the present case, the claimant's monthly loss was
assessed at ₹10,000/-, and the applicable multiplier is 17,
therefore, the correct computation ought to have been:
₹10,000 × 12 × 17 = ₹20,40,000/-
Instead, this Court erroneously applied:-
₹10,000 × 17 = ₹1,70,000/-
7. This constitutes a patent arithmetical mistake
striking at the root of the award and clearly falling within
the ambit of "error apparent on the face of the record". The
review jurisdiction is therefore rightly invoked for the
limited purpose of correcting this computational error,
while all other findings of the Tribunal and of this Court
remain undisturbed.
8. Let the order under review be corrected to the
extent that the appellant should be entitled to get future
prospects and also by converting the monthly income into
2018:UHC:1566
annual income.
9. Apart from the compensation awarded by the
Trial Court the appellant shall be entitled to get an amount
of ₹20,40,000/- along with an interest rate of 9% per
annum as granted by the Court. The respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within
two months from today with the Tribunal concerned with
all interest accrued thereon.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.12.2025
SK
