Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Dalip Singh Manwal & Others

By means of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 6.2.2016 rendered by Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh has been assailed, whereby the Court below has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,11,000/- along with 7 per cent simple annual interest from the date of institution of the petition till the actual payment.

Service was effected upon the claimants respondents, but none has turned up on their behalf to contest this appeal. So, this Court has heard learned Counsel of the appellant corporation.

The facts, as emerging out from the lower court record, are that the deceased Abhishek Manwal, a 11th standard student, was driving the Activa Scooter No. UK07- BD-5846. His friend Devesh Joshi was a pillion rider on such scooter. In the vicinity of Rishikesh, a roadways bus no. UK08-PA-0337 dashed such scooter causing Master Abhishek seriously injured and while carrying him to the nearby Jollygrant Hospital, he breathed his last. So, a claim petition no. 233/2014 was launched against the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation claiming compensation

to the tune of Rs. 14,20,000/-, whereagainst the Tribunal has awarded as indicated above.

Learned Counsel of the appellant has agitated the illegality of the award mainly on the ground that the deceased Abhishek was a minor and even then he was permitted by his parents to drive the Activa Scooter along with his friend Devesh Joshi as a pillion rider and that is why, his father Dalip Singh Manwal could not produce the driving licence of Master Abhishek.

The marksheet of 10th Class examination has been filed, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 22.2.1998. This way, at the time of accident he was of 16 years. So, it is abundantly clear that he did not attain even the age of majority at the time of accident. Therefore, there was no question of issuance of any driving licence to him by the competent authority.

Learned Trial Judge has relied upon a precedent on this score rendered in case of State of U.P. through Collector, Deoria & Others v. Vidyawati Singh & Another, 1994 (2) T.A.C. 443. But this precedent is not applicable in the present controversy for the reason that in such matter, the deceased (a motorcyclist) though did not have the driving licence, but he was a fully grown up man of 43 years and he used to drive daily by his motorcycle for a quite good distance. So, the Honble Judge of the Allahabad High Court was of the view that just on account of the absence of driving licence, no inference can be drawn that the deceased was driving the motorcycle negligently and rashly.

Here in the present matter, the deceased was just a lad of 16 years of age. So, his parents must not have permitted him to drive the Activa Scooter in such a manner. However, on the other hand, I find it quite unjustified if the parents are deprived of any compensation just on this ground, therefore, I attribute at least 50 per cent responsibility to the deceased for driving unauthorisedly the Activa Scooter. Otherwise also, in such matters, there is no calculative formula to award the compensation.

I think the ends of justice would be met if the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to fifty per cent. I order accordingly. At the same time, I also reduce the rate of interest from 7 per cent to 6 per cent per annum.

Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal stands allowed in above terms.

Registry shall remit the compulsory statutory amount along with the interest accrued on it to the Tribunal concerned. Let the LCR be sent back.