Ghanshyam Mishra @ G. Mishra, aged about 30 years, Son of Late Baikunth Mishra v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Branch Manager ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Ltd
Case Details
2025:JHHC:37537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 13 of 2025 Ghanshyam Mishra @ G. Mishra, aged about 30 years, Son of Late Baikunth Mishra, resident of - Namotola, Agarwal Colony, Haludbani, P.O.- Tatanagar, P.S.-Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Branch Manager ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Ltd. having its local office at Bistupur, Near Ram Mandir, P.O. & P.S. - Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. 3. Anita Devi, Wife of Ramotar Sharma @ Ram Awtar Sharma, Resident of Golpahari Kalimandir, behind Kundu Tal, P.O.- Tatanagar, P.S.- Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Owner of the offending Vehicle bearing Registration No. JH05BQ-2576. 4. Radheshyam Mishra, Son of Late Baikunth Mishra, resident of Namotola, Agarwal Colony, Haludbani, P.O.- Tatanagar, P.S.-Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. … …. Opposite Parties With C.M.P. No. 349 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Branch Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. having its local office at Bistupur Main Road behind Rammandir, P.O. & P.S. - Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum represented through the Legal Manager, Sri Amit Jaiswal, aged avout 35 years S/o Mr. Maheswar Bhagat At- R/0 1st Floor, Lake View Tower, Kadru Bypass Road Doranda Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda District-Ranchi 834002 ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Ghanshyam Mishra @ G. Mishra, 2. Radheshyam Mishra, Both Sons of Late Baikunth Mishra, resident of Namotola, Agarwal Colony, Haludbani, P.O.- Tatanagar, P.S.-Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. 3. Anita Devi, Wife of Ramotar Sharma @ Ram Awtar Sharma, Resident of Golpahari Kalimandir, behind Kundu Tal, P.O.- Tatanagar, P.S.- Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Owner of the offending Vehicle bearing Registration No. JH05BQ-2576. … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY In CMP No. 13 of 2025 For the Petitioners For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate In CMP No. 349 of 2025 For the Petitioners For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate ------ 2025:JHHC:37537 Order No. 12 / Dated : 12.12.2025. Both these civil miscellaneous petitions arise of the order passed at the execution stage arising out of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 100 of 2017, whereby and whereunder a compensation of Rs. 45,84,000/- has been allowed in favour of the claimants for the death of Baikunth Mishra who is the father of the claimants. 2. Petitioner no.1 of the claimants moved the learned Tribunal for modification of the award, to recall the direction to deposit 50% of the compensation amount in fixed deposit scheme for a period of six years. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant contended that on account of death of his father and financial hardship, he is in need of the amount for the present and therefore, the petition for release of the entire sum was made before the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that the claimant is major and therefore, there was no reason to deposit 50% of the amount in fixed deposit scheme. 4. Considering the grounds taken for partial modification of the award, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 13 of 2025 is allowed and petitioner will be permitted to withdraw the total compensation amount awarded in his favour in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 100 of 2017. 5. The Insurance-Company has preferred the civil miscellaneous petition against the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 21.12.2024 by which the petition filed on behalf of the Insurance-Company to correct the computational error in assessing the award of compensation has been rejected. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company that indisputably the deceased died leaving behind only two claimants. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. case and followed in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi the deduction under personal and living expense should have been 1/3rd and not 1/4th. However, learned Tribunal has erred in applying one-fourth deduction which can be made only where number of dependents are 4 to 6. 7. Insurance Company had moved the learned tribunal for rectifying this computational error, which has been rejected vide order dated 21.12.2024. Hence this civil miscellaneous Petition. 2025:JHHC:37537 8. Learned counsel on behalf of the claimants submits that the judgment and award of compensation have not been challenged and the issue has been raised by the Tribunal at the executing stage which cannot go beyond the decree/award. 9. This Court is of the view that error in computation in the award can be corrected even at the stage of execution for the reason on such errors committed by the Court, no substantive right accrues in favour of the claimants. 10. Law is settled that a judgment debtor can invoke Section 152 of the CPC to correct calculation errors, such as clerical or arithmetical mistakes, during the execution stage, provided the error is an accidental slip or omission that does not go to the merits of the case or involve an intentional or substantive mistake. The power under Section 152 of the CPC is limited to ministerial corrections and does not extend to passing new or effective judicial orders or correcting errors that affect the merits of the case. It has been held in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 328 : 12. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the tribunal cannot and, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party, if at all, is to file an appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by in Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. [(1999) 3 SCC 500] and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho [(2001) 4 SCC 181] . this Court 2025:JHHC:37537 11. Here, indisputably, the error in the judgment was with regard to application of wrong factor of deduction which was against the settled law. The error does not touch on the merit of the case as no finding of fact is being disturbed by the proposed correction. 12. Under the circumstance, C.M.P No.349 of 2025 is allowed to the extent, that the total compensation amount to be computed under Section 152 of the CPC by the learned tribunal by taking a 1/3rd deduction on the personal and living expense of the deceased, in place of 1/4th as had been taken.
Decision
Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 349 is disposed of. Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Pawan/ - Uploaded 17.12.2025 (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)