Judgment 1. This M.J.C. has been filed seeking modification or correction in the judgment delivered by this Court on 10.7.2001, passed in M.A. No. 2 of 1996. 2. Both sides were heard. 3. By the aforesaid judgment this Court had granted compensation amount of Rupees two lacs to the applicant-appellant Sidheshwar Prasad Lal on account of death of Susmita Lal. The Railway Claims Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of the fact that Susmita Lal was a eight months old baby. This Court enhanced the aforesaid amount of compensation to two lacs because there was no distinction made between the adult and baby in the Railway Accident and Untowards Incident Amendment Rules. 4. This M.J.C. has been filed claiming enhancement of compensation of Rupees Two Lacs to rupees four lacs in view of the amendment of the aforesaid rules as per the amending Act of 1997 which came into force on 1.11.1997. By the aforesaid amending Act in the Schedule of Rule 3, rupees four lacs have been provided as compensation for the death of railway passengers. In the instant case the accident took place on 20th September, 1995 but this Court granted compensation amount by its judgment delivered on 10.7.2001. The amending Rules had already come into force so it was submitted by the applicant-appellants lawyer that the amended rules shall be applicable for fixing the amount of compensation at the time when judgment was delivered by this Court. The learned lawyer also submitted that under Section 151 C.P.C, the original judgment announced by this Court may be modified or corrected because the law applicable to the facts of the case was not known to the appelianl when judgment of this Court was pronounced. For this submission, the learned lawyer relied on a decision rendered by Allahabad High Court as reported in A.i.R. 1987 page 319. In the aforesaid decision the High Court relied on decisions reported in A.I.R. 1984 (S.C.) 621, A.I.R. 1972 (S.C.) 15, A.I.R. 1971 (S.C.) 2355, A.I.R. 1970 S.C.) 276 and A.I.R. 1969 (S.C.) 1201. 5. So far the contention of the appelnts lawyer that the law in force at the time when the court has to announce its decision are applicable, I am in agreement with the appellants lawyer. 5. So far the contention of the appelnts lawyer that the law in force at the time when the court has to announce its decision are applicable, I am in agreement with the appellants lawyer. Of course, the liability of the Railways shall arise on the date of the alleged accident, but the law in force at time when the court has to pronounce its judgment shall be applicable for fixing the quantum of compensation. The next question is as to whether the power of this Court under Section 151 C.P.C. can be invoked to review, correct or modify the judgment passed by this Court. In this connection, the decision referred by the learned lawyer would come to the aid of he appellants contention in this behalf. Section 151 C.P.C. has provided that this court can pass any order in the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of this Court. In the instant case appliant-appellant was entitled to receive compensation amount of rupees four lacs for the death of Susmita Lal, but the amended rules in this connection were neither pointed by the appellants lawyer nor the court could lay its hands on the amended rules. So apparently there was a legal bar in fixing the compensation amount for the death of Susmita Lal, of course a child of eight months of age. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the same is to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the judgment delivered by this Court on 10.7.2001 in M.A. No. 2 of 1998 is modified to the effect that the applicant appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation amount of rupees four lacs from the respondents opposite parties, the Indian Railways.