Allahabad High Court
PROPRIETOR SHIV KUMAR OFFICE MANDAULI GAGARHversusSMT. MAYA DEVI AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed, as private settlements do not bar statutory compensation and no substantial question of law is involved.
Summary
The appellant owned a dumper driven by Gaurav Kumar, who died from electrocution while attempting to free the vehicle. The Employees' Compensation Commissioner awarded Rs.16,89,150 to the deceased's mother, despite the appellant's claim that Rs.3 lakh had already been paid privately to the father. The appellant argued that the Commissioner should have set off the private payment, contending a procedural error and seeking modification of the award. The respondent countered that there was no substantial question of law and the facts were undisputed. The High Court held that a private settlement does not preclude a victim from claiming statutory compensation and that the issues raised were factual, not legal, thus dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a private settlement between the employer and the victim's family should be set off against compensation awarded under the Employees' Compensation Act.
- Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law warranting reconsideration of the Commissioner's award.
Subjects
- Workmen's Compensation
- Employees' Compensation Act
- private settlement
- set off
- statutory compensation
- appeal dismissed
- factual issues
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2431 of 2026
Proprietor Shiv Kumar Office Mandauli Gagarh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Maya Devi And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Saini
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Pandey
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents are
present.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28.7.2026 passed
by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Labour Commissioner,
Saharanpur in Case No. W.C.A. No. 7 of 2024.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that Gaurav Kumar, son of the
respondent-claimant, was the driver and employee of the appellant. He got
electrocuted on 15.4.2024 while he was trying to take out the dumper, which
he was driving, from a place where it was stuck. A GD entry to this effect
was made vide GD No. 010 of 2024 at P.S. Burai, District Saharanpur.
Subsequently, a claim petition filed on behalf of the deceased's mother
(respondent) was allowed by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner
on 28.7.2026, whereby an award of Rs. 16,89,150/- was made in favour of
the respondent-claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not deny that the
deceased was the driver of his dumper bearing No. HR 58 C 0568 and that
the said driver was holding a learner's licence at the time of the alleged
incident. The alleged accident occurred at a time when the dumper was not
in use; rather, it was standing at a place and the driver was trying to rescue it
from where it was stuck. It was further contended that it has been
specifically recorded in the GD entry that, soon after the accident, an amount
of Rs. 3 lakhs was privately paid by the appellant to the father of the
deceased as compensation. However, the father of the deceased (respondent)
filed a claim before the concerned Commissioner to secure compensation,
and the same was also awarded by the concerned Commissioner without
FAFO No. 2431 of 2026
2
adverting to the fact that there was a categorical admission by the
respondent-claimant regarding receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation, as
claimed by the appellant. Even the respondent-claimant admitted this fact
during his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination, but the
learned Commissioner ignored this fact while awarding compensation. It
was incumbent upon the concerned Commissioner to set off the said amount
of Rs. 3 lakhs already paid as compensation to the respondent-claimant.
Therefore, the said award passed by the learned Commissioner requires
modification, and the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs ought to be reduced from the
total compensation awarded.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the grounds
raised by the appellant do not involve any substantial question of law and
there is no dispute that the deceased was an employee of the appellant.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
So far as the question of compensation granted to the respondent-claimant
without deducting the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs allegedly already paid by the
appellant is concerned, the same does not require any reconsideration. A
private settlement between the parties will not, in any manner, prevent the
victim from seeking compensation under the statutory provisions. Hence, the
said submission is bereft of merit and does not require any reconsideration.
So far as the other questions are concerned, they are purely questions of fact
and do not constitute any substantial question of law.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.
September 16, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…