HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2431 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Saini Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Pandey Proprietor Shiv Kumar Office Mandauli Gagarh .....Appellant(s) Smt. Maya Devi And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 FAFO No. 2431 of 2026 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad