The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a postmortem report was more reliable than an Aadhaar card for determining the age of a minor who died in a road accident, while recalculating the compensation payable to his parents. Justice Amit Seth observed that the medical assessment in the postmortem report, which recorded the deceased’s age as 13 years, deserved preference over the age mentioned in the Aadhaar card. The Court accordingly applied a multiplier of 15 instead of 18 and enhanced the compensation from 𔖱5.45 lakh to 𔖱8.25 lakh.
The Claims Tribunal had determined the deceased’s age as 14 years, 7 months and 9 days on the basis of his Aadhaar card. However, the insurance company challenged this determination, relying on the postmortem report, which recorded his age as 13 years. It argued that the Aadhaar card was not conclusive proof of age and that the postmortem report was based on a scientific medical assessment. Accepting the insurance company’s contention, the High Court observed:
“
“An Aadhaar Card is primarily an identity document and cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the age of its holder. On the other hand, the age recorded in the postmortem report is based upon medical assessment conducted in the course of postmortem examination. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds the medical opinion recorded in the postmortem report to be a more reliable basis for determining the age of the deceased.”
The Court also examined the appropriate multiplier to be applied while calculating compensation. The claimants had argued that the multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal should be retained. The insurance company, however, contended that a multiplier of 15 was applicable to a deceased below 15 years of age.
The High Court agreed that the deceased was 13 years old and held that a multiplier of 15 was appropriate. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Divya v. The National Insurance Company Limited, 2022 INSC 1108 and the three-judge Bench ruling in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65.
The Court assessed the deceased’s notional monthly income at 𔖱7,950, based on the applicable minimum wages for an unskilled worker. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 15, it calculated the loss of dependency at 𔖱7,15,500.
It further awarded 𔖱40,000 each to the parents towards loss of parental consortium, along with 𔖱15,000 each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.
Accordingly, the total compensation was recalculated at 𔖱8,25,500, resulting in an enhancement of 𔖱2,80,500. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
The Court partly allowed the parents’ appeal and also allowed the insurance company’s cross-objections to the extent of correcting the deceased’s age and applying the appropriate multiplier.
