Affirming settled law, the Uttarakhand High Court holds that in motor accident claims, the age of the deceased assessed in post-mortem reports may be given preference over family register or Aadhaar entries, especially when authenticity of the latter is unproven. The Court clarifies that deduction towards personal expenses must consider actual dependency, reaffirming Supreme Court principles. Binding precedent for motor accident claims tribunals and subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | AO/165/2024 of BABLU ALIAS CHANDVEER Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED |
| CNR | UKHC010059442024 |
| Date of Registration | 24-04-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Tribunal’s approach and settled principles |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims (Compensation), Law of Evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 2020 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The authenticity and probative value of evidence for establishing age; settled principles for calculating dependency and personal expenses per Supreme Court rulings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Ankit Kumar died in a hit-and-run accident while returning home on foot. He was identified post-mortem; claimants presented conflicting evidence of age (family register, Aadhaar, and post-mortem report). The Tribunal accepted the post-mortem report’s age assessment. Only the widowed mother was found dependent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts tasked with similar fact patterns in motor accident compensation claims |
| Follows | United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 2020 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that, where the authenticity of documentary evidence like family register or Aadhaar is unproven, courts may validly rely on the post-mortem report for determining age in motor accident compensation.
- Clarifies that deduction towards personal expenses must be determined based on the actual number of dependents.
- Endorses settled Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding dependency and calculation of income for compensation.
- Lawyers should ensure that documentary evidence presented to prove age is cogent, authentic, and sufficiently substantiated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s findings on the evidence regarding the age of the deceased: family register, Aadhaar card, and post-mortem report.
- It observed that the Tribunal provided cogent reasons for preferring the age recorded in the post-mortem report, notably the lack of evidence establishing the authenticity of the family register and Aadhaar entries.
- The Court cited Supreme Court precedent (Satinder Kaur) on deducing personal expenses and dependency, affirming deduction of ½ as correct given that only the widowed mother was dependent.
- The Court found no material irregularity or arbitrariness in the calculation of compensation, holding it to be just and reasonable.
- It concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision, thus dismissing the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The Tribunal wrongly determined the age of the deceased on the basis of the post-mortem report, ignoring more reliable documentary evidence (family register and Aadhaar card).
- The family register should be considered most reliable as a public record, and the post-mortem report is only an estimation without ossification testing.
- The Tribunal erred in assessing income/dependency, awarding inadequate compensation.
- Deduction of ½ towards personal expenses was wrong; in a joint family with a widowed mother and brothers, only 1/3rd should have been deducted, as per Supreme Court law.
Respondent (Insurance Company):
- The impugned judgment is correct; the Tribunal rightly assessed age and dependency.
- The panchnama did not specifically establish road accident as the cause of death, required under the Act.
- Deduction of ½ towards personal expenses was proper since there was only one dependent (widowed mother).
- No error or illegality present; compensation is just.
Factual Background
On 13.07.2021, Ankit Kumar, a tractor driver, died in a hit-and-run accident on the Bypass Road near an Indian Oil Petrol Pump while returning home on foot. Police initially treated the case as involving an unidentified person; after his identification, last rites were performed by family. An FIR was lodged against an unknown driver/vehicle. The claimants disputed the age of the deceased by producing different documents, but the Tribunal accepted the post-mortem report’s findings. Only the widowed mother was found to be dependent on the deceased.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment analyzed Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against compensation awards.
- Consideration of standards and methods for the assessment of age and dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act as interpreted by Supreme Court precedent.
- No specific statutory provision was read down, read in, or expansively/narrowly interpreted beyond standard application.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court law regarding evidence evaluation in compensation claims.