The Calcutta High Court has asserted that where the actual age of the deceased is in doubt and there is no unimpeachable contrary evidence, the Post-Mortem Report, being an expert opinion based on scientific assessment, should be the sole guiding factor and must be treated as sacrosanct for determining age. Further, receipt of family pension by the widow cannot be a ground to deny future prospects, and compensation under conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium must also be calculated strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].
The Court therefore quashed the Tribunal’s judgment and held that the age of the deceased should be taken as 50 years and that the multiplier of 13 should be applied. It directed that compensation be recalculated strictly in accordance with Pranay Sethi, including future prospects and the proper amounts under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium. Recording the appellants’ submission that, after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs already paid, a further sum of Rs. 13.80 lakhs were payable, the Court directed the insurance company to pay that differential amount along with interest at 6% per annum.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy observed that the Tribunal had proceeded on presumption in treating the deceased as being 60 years old merely because he was receiving pension and because the widow later received family pension. The Bench held that the materials on record did not establish whether the deceased had superannuated at 60 years or had taken voluntary retirement earlier, and no contrary evidence had been produced by the insurance company to prove that the deceased had in fact died after attaining 60 years of age.
In such circumstances, where there was no conclusive, decisive and definite evidence regarding the actual age of the deceased, the Post-Mortem Report, being based on scientific assessment and remaining unchallenged, ought to be treated as conclusive and decisive evidence of age. The Bench therefore accepted the age of the deceased as 50 years as recorded in the Post-Mortem Report and set aside the Tribunal’s contrary finding.
The Bench further observed that the law on computation of compensation had already been settled by the Supreme Court and there was no scope for the Tribunal to deny future prospects merely because the widow was receiving family pension. The Bench also found that the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium was in gross violation of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], particularly since that judgment had already been delivered prior to the Tribunal’s award.
Briefly, the appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased insured, Durga Prasad Sharma @ Bhattarai, against the judgment and award dated 10 December 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased, a primary school teacher under the Human Resources Department, Government of Sikkim, died on 18 October 2013 in a motor accident. His legal heirs had filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs but assessed the age of the deceased effectively at 60 years on the basis that he was receiving pension, applied a multiplier of 5, declined future prospects on the ground that the widow was receiving family pension, awarded only Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.5,000/- towards consortium, and also declined interest. The appellants challenged the award principally on the grounds that the multiplier was wrongly applied, future prospects were wrongly denied, and the amounts awarded under conventional heads were contrary to settled law.
