Correction of duplicated demand and arithmetical errors requires a personal hearing before reconsideration of the orders.

Duplicated demand components and arithmetical errors in two Orders-in-Original required correction insofar as they related to the petitioner, and the correction was to be made only after affording a personal hearing. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the errors, so the orders had to be reconsidered qua the petitioner with notice sent to the specified contact details. The corrected order was to be communicated within thirty days, after which the petitioner could pursue further remedies in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the two Orders-in-Original required reconsideration to correct duplication in the demanded amount and arithmetical errors in the figures reflected against the petitioner, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing before such correction.

Analysis: The pleadings disclosed duplication in one component of the demand and mistakes in the amounts stated in the two Orders-in-Original. The respondent did not dispute the existence of these errors. The petition therefore called for correction of the impugned orders only insofar as they concerned the petitioner, and such correction had to follow an opportunity of hearing.

Outcome: The Orders-in-Original were directed to be reconsidered qua the petitioner for correction of the noted errors after affording a personal hearing and sending notice to the specified contact details. The corrected order was to be communicated within thirty days, after which the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

---