Amar Bai v. Anil Kumar Jigyasi & Ors.

4 - Smt. Ansaiya, S/o Late Rajlal, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Baherajiya Kusami, P.S. And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For the appellant For respondent 1 & 2 : : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate Ms. Shrishti Attal, , Advocate For respondent no.3 : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 15/07/2026

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 864/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 13,80,400/- as compensation for the death of deceased.

2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 14.02.2021, deceased Rajlal Parthi was going on motorcycle from village Kusmi to Siltara, On the way when he reached village Bhibhouri at Shishu Mandir School respondent no.1 who was driving the offending Motorcycle No. C.G. 10/F.A. 5248 in rash and negligent way hit the deceased’s motor cycle, resultantly the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and died during treatment . Appellant Amar Bai being mother and legal heir of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 78,60,000/- on various heads.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the postmortem report, the age of deceased was 30 years, however, the Tribunal has considered the age to be 36 years on the basis of Aadhar Card. She further submits that the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- by doing labour work and miscellaneous business, but the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the lesser income of deceased as Rs. 7800/- per month. The amounts further granted under the conventional 3 heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been awarded. She prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased treating him as unskilled labour and thus it has passed the just award which needs no interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. In absence of any evidence regarding income of deceased, it would be appropriate to take his monthly income to be Rs.8960/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages (2009-2025) on the date of accident and to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified.

7. As regards the age, the contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of deceased as 30 years on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P-1). The post-mortem report is not considered conclusive proof of age as it is based on assumption and physical appearance. Therefore, the contention of claimants’ counsel is not acceptable.

8. The claimant party (mother) has pleaded in claim petition that the age of deceased was 35 years whereas the Aadhar Card shows his age to be 36 years. The Tribunal has considered the age of 36 on the basis of Aadhar Card. According to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024 INSC 81), an Aadhaar card 4 serves as proof of identity but is not conclusive proof of age or date of birth. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) circular explicitly states that Aadhaar is not a statutory document for verifying birth dates. In view of the above dictum of Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to take the the age mentioned by the claimant mother Amar Bai in the claim petition and therefore multiplier 16 is liable to be adopted in this case instead of 15 as adopted by the Tribunal.

9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below : Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

1. Total dependency loss of 13,10,400 Rs.8,960 x 12 = 1,07,520 plus Future Prospectus- 40% i.e., 43,008 = 1,50,528 minus 1/3rd deduction i.e., 50,176 = 1,00,352 x 16 multiplier = 16,05,632/-

4. Loss of estate 15,000 16,500/- Funeral expenses 15,000 16,500/- Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection 40,000 44,000 x 2 dependents 88,000/- Total Rs. 13,80,400/- 17,26,632/- 5

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. Rs. 13,80,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 17,26,632/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,80,400/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.3,46,232/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Rao Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge