High Court · 2025

Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, St anding Counsel for Union of I ndia/ appellant s. Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocat es respondent nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. The present Appeal from Order has 2. been preferred by t he Union of I ndia assailing t he award dat ed 02.05.2025 passed by t he learned Mot or Accident Claim s Judge, Tribunal/ Dist rict Pit horagarh in M.A.C.P. No. 04 of 2022. The fact s of t he case, in brief, are 3. t hat on 04.01.2022, t he deceased, Manoj Singh Kat hayat , who was em ployed t he appellant depart m ent , was t owards his nat ive village proceeding Payyaponi on his m ot orcycle bearing regist rat ion num ber GJ- DF- 4010 aft er having t aken leave. When he reached Jaulj ibi on t he Pit horagarh–Dharchula Mot orway, t he appellant depart m ent was carrying deploying a JCB m achine bearing num ber JCBQ 31858. I t is alleged t hat while t he deceased was wait ing for t he debris t o be cleared t o allow safe passage, t he driver of t he aforesaid JCB, respondent no. 3, drove t he m achine rashly and at a high speed, because of which t he bucket of t he JCB hit t he deceased, causing grievous head inj ury. The deceased was im m ediat ely t aken t o C.H.C. Dharchula, where he was declared dead. hill- cut t ing work

4. Learned counsel for t he appellant I t t o t o t he t he t hat argued t he claim ant s. fast ened upon subm it s t hat t he learned Tribunal has com m it t ed a m anifest error in awarding com pensat ion cont ended t hat t he deceased had already t he benefit of an been ext ended insurance am ount t une of ₹50,00,000/ - , which was paid by t he insurer under a policy exist ing in his favour, and once such paym ent has been received by t he claim ant s, no furt her liabilit y could be t he appellant depart m ent by way of a claim t he Mot or Vehicles Act . I t furt her appellant t hat depart m ent had no vicarious liabilit y in t he m at t er since t he deceased was not a t hird part y but a depart m ent al em ployee who had m et wit h t he accident due t o his own negligence. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t he evidence adduced on behalf of t he claim ant s does not inspire confidence, as P.W.- 2 Laxm an Singh him self adm it t ed t hat he could not st at e t he speed of t he JCB, and t he st at em ent s m ade by him were self- cont radict ory. I t is furt her subm it t ed t hat t he JCB was execut ing t he hill- cut t ing work and, t herefore, t he quest ion of rash and negligent driving does not arise in t he execut ion of such st at ionary or t hat t he cont rolled work. He subm it s deceased driving him self was m ot orcycle at a high speed and t he accident occurred solely due t o his lack of care and at t ent ion. The appellant produced t heir own wit nesses t o support t he claim t he JCB was being operat ed at a speed not exceeding 10 km per hour and t hat t here was no fault at t ribut able t o t he driver. Hence, t he im pugned award, being perverse and based on conj ect ure, deserves t o be set aside. t hat t he cont ra, learned t he deceased such personal in any m anner disent it le counsel 5. Per appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 has st rongly opposed t he learned subm issions advanced by counsel for t he appellant . I t is argued t hat t he insurance am ount received by t he claim ant s was under a personal insurance policy, which is dist inct and independent from t he st at ut ory right t o claim com pensat ion under Sect ion 166 of t he Mot or Vehicles Act , 1988. The receipt insurance benefit t he cannot dependent s of pursuing a claim for com pensat ion arising from t he negligent act of anot her person. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon t he j udgm ent rendered by in t he case Hon’ble Suprem e Court of Vim al Kanwar & ot hers Vs. Kishore Dan & ot hers, report ed in( 2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein it is held t hat am ount s received under life or personal accident insurance, provident fund, pension or sim ilar schem es are not paid on account of t he wrongful act of t he t ort feasor but because of a separat e cont ract ual or deceased/ st at ut ory t herefore claim ant s. These cannot “ pecuniary advant age” liable for deduct ion from t he in a com pensat ion payable m ot or double t o deduct ion or unj ust denial of right ful com pensat ion. Learned counsel t hus subm it s t hat t he am ount received by t he heirs of a deceased under a life or personal accident insurance policy cannot t he be deduct ed while det erm ining quant um of com pensat ion under t he Mot or Vehicles Act , as such paym ent is m ade under a cont ract of insurance and not as a result of t ort ious liabilit y. I t is furt her subm it t ed t hat t he evidence on for deat h accident , benefit s t reat ed t he t hat t hat clearly est ablishes t he record accident occurred due t o t he rash and negligent operat ion of t he JCB by respondent no. 3; t hat t he deceased was a vict im of t he negligent execut ion of t he Tribunal, aft er work; and evidence appreciat ing report , including post m ort em wit ness a well- deposit ions, reasoned and j ust ified award and no perversit y or illegalit y can be t raced in t he findings so recorded. ent ire inspect ion rendered t he spot report , t he t he

6. Having considered subm issions advanced on behalf of t he part ies and aft er perusing t he ent ire m at erial available on record, t his Court finds no m erit in t he appeal. The learned Tribunal has properly appreciat ed t he oral and docum ent ary evidence adduced by t he part ies and has right ly com e t o t he conclusion t hat t he accident occurred due t o rash and negligent operat ion of t he t he JCB by respondent no. 3 course t he em ploym ent appellant depart m ent . The cont ent ion t hat t he paym ent of personal insurance would bar or offset t o com pensat ion under t he Mot or Vehicles Act is m isconceived in law, as t he t wo st and on different foot ings and address dist inct legal right s. The appellant has cont ribut ory est ablish failed negligence on t he part of t he deceased, nor has any cogent m at erial been brought t o show t hat t he findings of fact recorded by t he learned Tribunal suffer from perversit y warrant ing int erference in an appellat e j urisdict ion. t he t o

7. Accordingly, t he Appeal from Order is hereby dism issed. The im pugned award dat ed 02.05.2025 passed by t he Mot or Accident Claim s learned Tribunal/ Dist rict Judge, Pit horagarh M.A.C.P. No. 04 of 2022 is affirm ed. Learned Tribunal is direct ed t o release t he am ount of com pensat ion in favour of t he fort hwit h along wit h accrued int erest , if any, in accordance wit h law. claim ant s ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

18.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20ddd b7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874 46351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL