IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.149 of 2006 1. SUCHITA KUMARI & ORS. -- APPELLANTS Versus 1. PRABHU PRASAD & ORS -- RESPONDENTS For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Nayan For Respondent No.3: Mr. Shailendra Kumar 9 08.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no.3. There is none on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the vehicle in question. This appeal appears to have been filed after causing much delay. Of course there is petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by way of I.A no. 1976 of 2006 but the ground taken for condonation is that appellant no.1, being widow of the deceased, was the pairvikar of the case before the court below and she could not be aware of preparation of final Award in time and was also ill. At the same time, it is undisputed position that appellants no.4 and 5 respectively, mother-in-law and father-in-law of appellant no.1, were also claimant before the Court below and joined their hands with appellant no.1 herein in this appeal also. It is stated in Interlocutory Application that they were having some hostile attitude 2 against appellant no.1. Had this been the real situation they could not have joined with appellant no.1 in this appeal as appellants no.4 and 5. This goes to show that just for the Interlocutory application, such unacceptable ground has been taken. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application seeking condonation of delay. Thus, the Interlocutory application stands dismissed. In view of the rejection of Interlocutory application no.1976 of 2006, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. However, during the course of submissions my attention was drawn towards paragraph 10 of the judgment of the court below wherein on the basis of materials he has arrived at definite conclusion that the deceased had monthly income of Rs.6,000/- but at the time of calculation by applying multiplier which has been fixed and considered at Rs.4,800/- and thereafter one third of the total amount has also been reduced. This appears nothing but a clerical error which can be rectified at the moment it is brought in the notice. The learned counsels representing the appellants and respondent no.3 are also in agreement that in exercise 3 of inherent powers under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure this error may be rectified at this stage and it should not be left for correction before the court below. In view of undisputed monthly income of the deceased being Rs.6,000/- his annual income becomes Rs.72,000/-. After deducting one third from the same it goes to Rs.48,000/- and if it is multiplied by the multiplier accepted by the court below, that is, 17 it comes to Rs.8,16,000/-. As against this due to clerical error the amount awarded to the appellants is Rs.6,52,800/- which is much below the actual findings of the court below. The Award passed by the court below is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.6,52,800/- it must be for Rs.8,16,000/- and the insurer is liable to pay the amount with interest after deducting what has been paid to the appellant. With this modification in the Award, this appeal stands dismissed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad/