HC Cannot Alter Substantive Rights Through ‘Clarification’: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that a high court can correct clerical or accidental errors under Section 152 of the CPC, or issue limited clarificatory directions under Section 151 to give effect to what was originally decided. However, it cannot change findings on negligence, alter the quantum of compensation, redistribute liability, or affect substantive rights in the guise of clarification.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said that any such exercise would, in law, amount to a review and must meet the strict requirements under Order XLVII CPC.

“Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. It does not allow re-determination of issues or alteration of the substance of the decree. The provision cannot be used to modify, add to, or subtract from the terms of a judgment once pronounced. It cannot be invoked to change the operative part of a judgment on merits and is confined only to correcting clerical or accidental errors,” the Bench said.

Court further clarified that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised in a way that goes against the express provisions of the Code. These powers are meant to supplement the procedure, not override it.

Allowing an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s orders dated October 15, 2024 and January 17, 2023. The October 15 order had been passed in review, while the January 17 order arose from a clarification sought in relation to an earlier judgment dated September 18, 2019.

The case arose from a 2009 accident in which Hom Devi died and two others were injured after their motorcycle collided with a jeep driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was working as a multi-purpose health worker and was earning Rs 21,805 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak awarded compensation of Rs 8,80,000 with 7.5% interest. On appeal, the high court enhanced the compensation but held that the amount received by the family under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 should be deducted from the total compensation.

Under its main judgment, the high court fixed the total compensation at Rs 29,09,240 and directed that the amount received under the 2006 Rules, along with any amount awarded by the tribunal, would be deducted.

The claimants then filed an application seeking clarification on the deduction of the amount received under the 2006 Rules. By way of the clarification order, the position taken in the main judgment was effectively reversed.

The Supreme Court examined whether the amount received under the 2006 Rules should be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.

It held that deduction is permissible only where the financial assistance overlaps with the same pecuniary loss for which compensation is awarded, particularly loss of income. Benefits that are not in the nature of income replacement, or are otherwise unrelated to the accident, cannot be deducted. Court also said that eligibility or actual receipt of such benefits must be established on record before making any deduction.

It added that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act should first be determined in full, and a mechanism can be used later to adjust the award if overlapping financial assistance is actually received.

The Bench also noted that when a high court hears an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is exercising civil appellate jurisdiction. The Act does not provide for any independent procedure to “clarify” a concluded appellate judgment. Any such application must fall within the limited scope of Sections 151 or 152 CPC and cannot be used as a substitute for review.

Court set aside the review order and restored the main judgment.

It directed that the amount received by the claimants under the 2006 Rules will be deducted from the compensation as modified in the main judgment. The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal will remain unchanged and will be payable from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kanika & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: February 24, 2026