Motor Vehicles Act Doesn’t Create Independent Mechanism For ‘Clarification’ Of Concluded Appellate Judgment: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering the appeals filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Supreme Court has held that the Motor Vehicles Act does not create any independent procedural mechanism called a“clarification” of a concluded appellate judgment. The Apex Court made it clear that an application styled as one for clarification must be located within the limited corrective powers recognised by the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “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, 1908 , principally Sections 151 and 152. It cannot operate as a parallel or substitute procedure.”
Senior Advocate Atul Nanda represented the Appellant, while AOR Aditya Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2009, when a motorcycle being driven by one Ravinder Kumar, carrying two pillion riders, Hom Devi and Kanika (first respondent), collided with a jeep, on account of the latter’s rash and negligent driving. Hom Devi passed away, and the other two people on the motorcycle received multiple injuries. The deceased was employed as an MPHW in PHC Chhara, drawing a salary of Rs 21805 per month. The first Respondent, along with her two brothers, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which was allowed, and the amount awarded was Rs 8,80,000, to be borne by the respondents, jointly and severally. 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, 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, 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 was reversed. The Order in Review recorded that the application was withdrawn, seeking liberty to challenge the same.
Reasoning
Referring to the judgment in Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma (2016), the Bench explained that the same clarifies that deduction is permissible only to the extent that financial assistance overlaps with the same pecuniary loss for which compensation is awarded under the MVA, most notably the loss of income. Benefits that are not like income substitution, or that are otherwise unconnected to the accident-related loss, are not deductible. The Bench further explained that the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender & Ors. (2020), does not revisit or alter this substantive rule, and it addresses the stage at which such deductions may be made and the evidentiary basis required for doing so. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in deducting a portion of the financial assistance merely on the assumption that the claimants were entitled to it. It emphasised that eligibility or actual receipt must be established on record before any deduction is effected.
“Thus, the two decisions are consistent in principle. Shashi Sharma defines what is deductible, while Birender clarifies when and how such deductions should be made. The latter does not depart from the former; rather, it ensures that the substantive rule is applied with appropriate procedural safeguards and without speculative assumptions. Together, they form a coherent legal position governing both the nature and the timing of deductions under the 2006 Rules”, it added.
The Bench stated that Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. “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 compensation, 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”, it held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the Order in Review and restored the main order. “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.”
Cause Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 188)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Atul Nanda, Advocates Kshitij Mittal, Abhyuday Singh, AOR Mukesh Kumar
Respondent: AOR Aditya Singh, Advocates Shubham Singh, Kamal Kishor, Vaseem