Benefits under the 2006 Rules replacing lost pay are deductible from motor accident compensation to prevent double recovery.

On November 2, 2009, a motorcycle carrying Ravinder Kumar and two pillion riders, including the deceased Hom Devi (a government employee), collided with a negligently driven jeep.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,80,000/- to the claimants.

On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,09,240/- in its "Main Order," directing that financial assistance received under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 ("2006 Rules") be deducted.

However, via a subsequent "Clarification Order" dated January 17, 2023, the High Court reversed this, holding the 2006 Rules benefits were not deductible.

The Insurance Company challenged this reversal.

1. Whether the financial assistance received by dependents under the 2006 Rules is deductible from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Whether a High Court, while exercising civil appellate jurisdiction, can substantively alter the amount of a compensation award under the guise of an application for "clarification".

The court relied on the precedent set in *Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma* (2016) 9 SCC 627, which established that components of the 2006 Rules replacing the deceased's "pay and allowances" (ex-gratia financial assistance) must be offset against MVA compensation to avoid double recovery, while pensions and other unrelated benefits remain non-deductible.

It further applied *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender* (2020) 11 SCC 356, clarifying that such deductions require proof of eligibility and actual receipt.

Procedurally, sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) limit the court's power in "clarification" applications to correcting clerical, arithmetical, or accidental errors, and prohibit altering substantive rights or findings.

The Supreme Court concluded that *Shashi Sharma* and *Birender* are consistent: the former defines *what* is deductible (income substitution) and the latter dictates *when* it is deductible (following proof of receipt).

The Court found the High Court's "Clarification Order" legally flawed as it fundamentally altered the compensation amount, exceeding the narrow corrective scope of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.

Substantial changes to an award's quantum must satisfy the strict requirements of a Review under Order XLVII CPC.

By reversing its stance on the deductibility of the 2006 Rules without such a review process, the High Court erred in principle and procedure.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's "Clarification Order" and restored its "Main Order," directing that ex-gratia financial assistance received under the 2006 Rules *must* be deducted from the total compensation award to prevent double recovery.

The Court ordered the claimants to file an affidavit before the Tribunal indicating the sum received under the 2006 Rules to facilitate the proper disbursal of the remaining insurer-paid compensation.

If no amount was received under the Rules, the full enhanced award shall be payable.