1. Claimants sought compensation enhancement under the Motor Vehicles Act, while the insurer challenged the deduction of compassionate assistance benefits awarded under state government employment rules. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 203
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kanika & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2506-2507 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26979-80 of 2025)
Decided On : 24-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Ad. Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Vaseem, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Ad. Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Vaseem, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Compensation – Deduction is permissible only to the extent that financial assistance overlaps with same pecuniary loss for which compensation is awarded under MVA, most notably loss of income.
(2) When a High Court decides appeal under Section 173 of MVA, it is exercising civil appellate jurisdiction – MVA does not create any independent procedural mechanism called a “clarification” of a concluded appellate judgment.
(C) Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions – Section 152 cannot be invoked to change operative part of a judgment on merits.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – Death in motor accident – Compensation – Deductions – Deduction is permissible only to the extent that financial assistance overlaps with same pecuniary loss for which compensation is awarded under MVA, most notably loss of income – Benefits that are not in nature of income substitution, or that are otherwise unconnected to accident-related loss, are not deductible – Amount received by claimant-respondents in terms of 2006 Rules will be deducted from award – If no amount is received or receivable under 2006 Rules, claimant-respondents shall be entitled to claim entire amount in terms of main order passed by High Court. (Paras 6.3 and 8)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 151 and 152 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Change in award – When a High Court decides appeal under Section 173 of MVA, it is exercising civil appellate jurisdiction – MVA does not create any independent procedural mechanism called a “clarification” of a concluded appellate judgment – An application styled as one for clarification must be located within limited corrective powers recognised by CPC, principally Sections 151 and 152 of CPC – It cannot operate as a parallel or substitute procedure – Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions – Section 152 cannot be invoked to change 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 – In such appeal, 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 alter findings on negligence, modify quantum of compensation, redistribute liability, or otherwise affect substantive rights under guise of clarification – Any such exercise would, in law, amount to review in substance and must satisfy t strict requirements of review under Order XLVII CPC. (Paras 7, 7.1 and 7.3)
Facts of the case:
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?
Findings of Court:
The details of bank account of claimant-respondent be supplied to appellant by respective counsel before Tribunal, when they appear before Tribunal on 27th February 2026.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Final Decision of the Court: Appeals allowed. The Order in Review dated 15th October 2024 is set aside, and the Main Order dated 18th September 2019 is restored. (!) [8]
The amount received by the claimant-respondents under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, is to be deducted from the compensation awarded as modified by the Main Order. (!) [8]
The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal remains unchanged, payable from the date of institution of the claim petition. (!) [8]
Claimant-respondents are directed to file an affidavit before the Tribunal indicating the sum received under the 2006 Rules (if any), enabling the Tribunal to make suitable orders for disbursal. Upon such order, the sum shall be released to the claimant-respondents within six weeks. If no amount is received or receivable under the 2006 Rules, claimants are entitled to the entire amount per the Main Order. (!) [8]
Details of the claimant-respondents' bank account to be supplied to the appellant by respective counsel before the Tribunal on 27th February 2026. (!) [8]
A copy of the judgment to be sent to the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for compliance. (!) (!)
Pending applications stand closed; no order as to costs. (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimants argued that compassionate assistance benefits are not deductible from motor accident compensation, whereas the insurer contended that double recovery must be avoided through necessary deductions. (Para 4 )
3. The court observed that only financial assistance overlapping with pecuniary losses like income are deductible, and determined that procedural clarifications cannot be used to modify substantive appellate awards. (Para 7 )
4. The court set aside the clarification order, restored the original award allowing for deductions, and mandated that claimants declare any received assistance via affidavit for final adjustment. (Para 8 )
5. Can a High Court use an application for clarification to modify a substantive compensation award?
No. An application for clarification cannot be used to alter substantive rights, modify quantum, or redistribute liability. Procedural powers under Section 151 or 152 of the CPC are limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot substitute for the substantive review process. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals questioning the correctness of final judgments and orders dated 15th October 20241[Order in Review] passed in CM NO.16984 of 2024 and 17th January 20232[Clarification Order] 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 20113[Main Order].
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, Rohtak which was allowed in terms of order dated 9th October 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, 20064[2006 Rules], 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 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 , (2016) 9 SCC 627 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, 19886[ MVA ] 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 und
