Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Compensation — Deduction of financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Overlapping pecuniary benefit — Double recovery impermissible. (Paras 5–6.3, 8) The issue was whether amounts received by the claimants under the 2006 Rules are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Relying upon Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, the Court held that financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, to the extent it corresponds to “pay and allowances” substituting loss of income, must be deducted to prevent double recovery. However, benefits not overlapping with loss of income (e.g., pension, provident fund, insurance) are not deductible. The subsequent decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender does not dilute this principle; it clarifies only the procedural stage and evidentiary requirement for deduction, namely that actual receipt or eligibility must be established before adjustment. Ratio Decidendi: Amounts received or receivable under the 2006 Rules, insofar as they represent compensation equivalent to pay and allowances lost due to death, are liable to deduction from motor accident compensation to avoid double recovery; however, deduction must be based on proof of receipt or entitlement.

advocatemmmohan

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Compensation — Deduction of financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Overlapping pecuniary benefit — Double recovery impermissible. (Paras 5–6.3, 8)

The issue was whether amounts received by the claimants under the 2006 Rules are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Relying upon Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, the Court held that financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, to the extent it corresponds to “pay and allowances” substituting loss of income, must be deducted to prevent double recovery. However, benefits not overlapping with loss of income (e.g., pension, provident fund, insurance) are not deductible.

The subsequent decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender does not dilute this principle; it clarifies only the procedural stage and evidentiary requirement for deduction, namely that actual receipt or eligibility must be established before adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts received or receivable under the 2006 Rules, insofar as they represent compensation equivalent to pay and allowances lost due to death, are liable to deduction from motor accident compensation to avoid double recovery; however, deduction must be based on proof of receipt or entitlement.

---

Sub silentio / Per incuriam — Allegation rejected — Harmonious reading of precedents. (Para 6.3)

The contention that Birender was sub silentio or per incuriam to Shashi Sharma was rejected. The Court held both judgments operate in distinct but complementary spheres:

Shashi Sharma defines the nature and scope of deductible benefits;
Birender prescribes procedural safeguards for effecting such deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: A later judgment clarifying procedural safeguards does not overrule or conflict with an earlier judgment laying down substantive principles; both must be harmoniously construed.

---

High Court — Clarification Application — Scope under Sections 151 and 152 CPC — Substantive modification impermissible. (Paras 7–7.3)

An appellate judgment under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be substantively altered through a “clarification” application.

Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips, as held in Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho and State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh.

Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to modify substantive rights or alter the operative portion of the decree, as clarified in Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh and My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. B. Mahesh.

The High Court, by reversing its earlier deduction through a clarification order, effectively modified substantive rights without satisfying review jurisdiction requirements under Order XLVII CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarification application cannot be used to alter substantive findings or modify quantum of compensation; any such change amounts to review and must satisfy statutory requirements.

---

Procedural Safeguard — Affidavit mechanism for adjustment. (Para 8)

The claimants are required to file an affidavit before the Tribunal disclosing amounts received under the 2006 Rules. Deduction, if any, shall be made accordingly. If no such amount is received or receivable, the entire enhanced compensation shall be payable.

Ratio Decidendi: Deduction must be founded on factual disclosure and proof; speculative or assumed adjustment is impermissible.

---

Operative Conclusion

1. Appeals allowed.

2. Clarification Order set aside.

3. Main Order restored.

4. Amount received under the 2006 Rules to be deducted from compensation awarded under the Main Order, subject to affidavit verification.

5. Interest rate as awarded by the Tribunal maintained.

Pending applications stood closed. No order as to costs.