2025:UHC:11353 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.222 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Standing Counsel for Union of India/ appellants. Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocates for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. 2. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the Union of India assailing the award dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.P. No. 04 of 2022. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 04.01.2022, the deceased, Manoj Singh Kathayat, who was employed under the appellant department, was proceeding towards his native village Payyaponi on his motorcycle bearing registration number GJ-DF-4010 after having taken leave. When he reached Jauljibi on the Pithoragarh–Dharchula Motorway, the appellant department was carrying out hill-cutting work by deploying a JCB machine bearing number JCBQ 31858. It is alleged that while the deceased was waiting for the debris to be cleared to allow safe passage, the driver of the aforesaid JCB, respondent no. 3, drove the machine rashly and at a high speed, because of which the bucket of the JCB hit the deceased, causing grievous head injury. The deceased was immediately taken to C.H.C. Dharchula, where he was declared dead. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant 2025:UHC:11353 submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in awarding compensation to the claimants. It is contended that the deceased had already been extended the benefit of an insurance amount to the tune of ₹50,00,000/ -, which was paid by the insurer under a policy existing in his favour, and once such payment has been received by the claimants, no further liability could be fastened upon the appellant department by way of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further argued that the appellant department had no vicarious liability in the matter since the deceased was not a third party but a departmental employee who had met with the accident due to his own negligence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants does not inspire confidence, as P.W.-2 Laxman Singh himself admitted that he could not state the speed of the JCB, and the statements made by him were self- contradictory. It is further submitted that the JCB was executing the hill-cutting work and, therefore, the question of rash and negligent driving does not arise in the execution of such stationary or controlled work. He submits that the deceased himself was driving his motorcycle at a high speed and the accident occurred solely due to his lack of care and attention. The appellant produced their own witnesses to support the claim that the JCB was being operated at a speed not exceeding 10 km per hour and that there was no fault attributable to the driver. Hence, the impugned award, being perverse and based on conjecture, deserves to be set aside. 2025:UHC:11353 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 has strongly opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the insurance amount received by the claimants was under a personal insurance policy, which is distinct and independent from the statutory right to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The receipt of such personal insurance benefit cannot in any manner disentitle the dependents of the deceased from pursuing a claim for compensation arising from the negligent act of another person. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & others Vs. Kishore Dan & others, reported in(2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein it is held that amounts received under life or personal accident insurance, provident fund, pension or similar schemes are not paid on account of the wrongful act of the tortfeasor but because of a separate contractual or statutory right of the deceased/ claimants. These benefits therefore cannot be treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction from the compensation payable for death in a motor accident, to avoid double deduction or unjust denial of rightful compensation. Learned counsel thus submits that the amount received by the heirs of a deceased under a life or personal accident insurance policy cannot be deducted while determining the quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, as such payment is made under a contract of insurance and not as a result of tortious liability. It is further submitted that the evidence on 2025:UHC:11353 record clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent operation of the JCB by respondent no. 3; that the deceased was a victim of the negligent execution of work; and that the Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence including the spot inspection report, postmortem report, and witness depositions, has rendered a well- reasoned and justified award and no perversity or illegality can be traced in the findings so recorded. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after perusing the entire material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent operation of the JCB by respondent no. 3 in the course of employment under the appellant department. The contention that the payment of personal insurance would bar or offset the right to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is misconceived in law, as the two stand on different footings and address distinct legal rights. The appellant has failed to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, nor has any cogent material been brought to show that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal suffer from perversity warranting interference in an appellate jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order is hereby dismissed. The impugned award dated 02.05.2025 passed by the 2025:UHC:11353 learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.P. No. 04 of 2022 is affirmed. Learned Tribunal is directed to release the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants forthwith along with accrued interest, if any, in accordance with law. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 18.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.12.18 15:54:09 +05'30'