Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika & Ors.

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals questioning the correctness of final judgments and orders dated 15th October 2024[1] passed in CM NO.16984 of 2024 and 17th January 2023[2] passed in CM No.13449 of 2021, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The order dated 15th October 2024 was an order passed in Review of the latter. The order dated 17th January 2023 was a consequence of a clarification having been sought of order dated 18th September 2019 passed by the High Court in FAO No.2017 of.

3. The facts as necessary for disposal of the appeal are: On 2nd November 2009, a motorcycle being driven by Ravinder Kumar, carrying two pillion riders, Smt. Hom Devi and Kanika respondent no.1 herein collided with a jeep, on account of the latter’s rash and negligent driving. Smt. Hom Devi passed away and the other two people on the motorcycle received multiple injuries. The deceased was employed as MPHW in PHC Chhara at Village Daboda, drawing a salary of Rs. 21805 per month. Respondent no.1 herein along with her two brothers, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

2010. The amount awarded was Rs.8,80,000/- @7.5% interest per annum, to be borne by respondents, jointly and severally.

4. The claimants-respondents approached the High Court seeking enhancement thereof. The Court allowed the prayer for enhancement but held that the amount received by the family as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006[4], had to be deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded to them. As such, the total compensation awarded by the High Court in terms of the Main Order was Rs. 29,09,240/- while holding that the amount received by the claimant-respondents as part of compensation under the 2006 Rules and any part of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, would be deducted. The claimant-respondents filed an application for clarification in so far as the deduction of the amount received as per the 2006 Rules was ordered. By way of the Clarification Order, the position of the Main Order appears to have been reversed. It was held: “ Considering the submissions made, as noted above, the order dated 18.09.2019 is hereby modified to the extent that the claimants would also 4 2006 Rules be entitled to pension, therefore the entire amount of compensation as received from the Government under the Scheme of 2006, will not be deductible from the amount payable. In this way, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 25,83,949/-…” The Order in Review records that the application was withdrawn seeking liberty to challenge the same.

5. The matter now stands before us. The short question to be decided is whether the amount in terms of the 2006 Rules has to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or not?

6. We find that the High Court, in its Main Order, relied on the judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma[5] to hold the opposite to what it did in the Clarification Order. The said judgment holds the field in so far as the 2006 Rules and deductions of the amounts awarded thereunder is concerned. 6.[1] A three judge bench in the above judgment dealt with a claim for compensation after a fatal motor accident. The deceased was a Government employee, and his family filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[6] against the insurer. At the same time, the dependents were entitled to receive financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, which provide ex-gratia payments to families of Government employees who die during service. These benefits include amounts that replace lost pay and allowances, as well as other forms of assistance not directly related to income. The main question before the Court was whether amounts received under the 2006 Rules should be deducted from the compensation awarded under the MVA. It was held that only benefits that directly replace the same type of loss, like loss income, can be deducted. Benefits under the 2006 Rules that correspond to pay and allowances the deceased would have earned must therefore be offset against the compensation awarded under MVA, to prevent double recovery. Other components of the 2006 Rules, such as pensions, life insurance, or unrelated allowances, remain unaffected and cannot be deducted. The relevant extract is as under:-

7. The next aspect to be considered in assessing the correctness of the impugned orders, is whether it was open for the Court to, while entertaining an application for clarification, to make a substantive change to the award i.e., alter the amount of compensation to be paid by the appellant. When a High Court decides an appeal under Section 173 of the MVA, it is exercising civil appellate jurisdiction. The MVA does not create any independent procedural mechanism called a “clarification” of a concluded appellate judgment. Consequently, an application styled as one for clarification must be located within the limited corrective powers recognised by the Code of Civil Procedure,, principally Sections 151 and 152. It cannot operate as a parallel or substitute procedure. 7.[1] Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. The Supreme Court has consistently confined this provision to its narrow textual limits. In Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho[9], this Court held that Section 152 is attracted only where the error is accidental and does not extend to re-determining issues or altering the substance of the decree. [See also: Neeraj Kumar Sainy v. State of U.P.10 ] The Court emphasised that the provision cannot be used to modify, add to, or subtract from the terms of a judgment once pronounced. Similarly, in State of Punjab v. Darshan 8 ‘CPC or ‘the Code’

Singh11, this Court reiterated that Section 152 cannot be invoked to change the operative part of a judgment on merits; it is confined to correcting clerical or accidental errors and cannot be pressed into service to vary substantive rights. 7.[2] The limits of inherent power under Section 151 CPC are also no longer res integra. In Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh12, the Court held that inherent powers cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the express provisions of the Code, or in other words that these inherent powers have to be exercised, with due respect to the other provisions of the Code. They exist to supplement the procedure, not to override it. A threejudge bench in My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. B. Mahesh13, followed this position. 7.[3] Therefore, the position is clear. In such an appeal, the High Court may correct clerical or accidental errors under Section 152 CPC, or issue limited clarificatory directions under Section 151 CPC to give effect to what was originally decided. However, it cannot, for example, alter findings on negligence, modify the quantum of com- pensation, redistribute liability, or otherwise affect substantive rights under the guise of clarification. Any such exercise would, in law, amount to a review in substance and must satisfy the strict requirements of review under Order XLVII CPC.

8. In that view of the matter, appeals are allowed. The Order in Review is set aside, and the Main Order is restored. The amount received by the claimant-respondents in terms of the 2006 Rules will be deducted from the award as modified by the Main Order. The rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal will remain unchanged, payable from the date of institution of the claim petition. Let an affidavit be filed before the Tribunal, by the claimant-respondents, indicating the sum so received, if any, enabling the Tribunal to make suitable orders for disbursal of the money by appellant herein. Once such an order is made, the sum shall be released in favour of the claimant-respondent within six weeks therefrom. We clarify that if no amount is received or receivable under the 2006 Rules, the claimant-respondents shall be entitled to claim the entire amount in terms of the main order passed by the High Court. The details of the bank account of the claimant-respondent be supplied to the appellant by the respective counsel before the Tribunal, when they appear before the Tribunal on 27th February 2026. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the suring onward compliance. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand closed and, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ……………………………………...J. (SANJAY KAROL) …………………………………….…J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) New Delhi; February 24, 2026