The Calcutta High Court has enhanced compensation awarded to the family of a deceased motor accident victim, holding that in the absence of conclusive evidence regarding age, courts and tribunals must rely on the age recorded in the post-mortem report rather than presumptions drawn from the fact that the deceased was receiving pension.

Justice Aniruddha Roy observed that a post-mortem report is based on scientific assessment and expert opinion and must be treated as the decisive guide for determining age unless contradicted by unimpeachable evidence.

"In such a situation where any doubt arises with regard to ascertaining the age of the deceased, the expert's opinion being the said P.M. report should be the sole guiding factor and must be taken as sacrosanct," the Court held.

Background

The appeal was filed by the widow and other legal heirs of Durga Prasad Sharma alias Bhattarai, a former primary school teacher under the Government of Sikkim, who died in a road accident on October 18, 2013.

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹6 lakh. While computing compensation, the Tribunal assumed that the deceased was at least 60 years old because he was drawing pension and therefore applied a multiplier of five. The Tribunal also declined to award any amount towards future prospects, reasoning that the widow was receiving family pension.

Challenging the award, the claimants contended that the post-mortem report recorded the deceased's age as 50 years and that the Tribunal had ignored settled Supreme Court precedents governing computation of compensation.

Court's Analysis

The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the deceased's age was based entirely on assumptions.

The Court noted that neither the insurance company nor any evidence on record established that the deceased had retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. The materials only showed that he was receiving pension before his death and that his widow was receiving family pension thereafter.

Justice Roy observed that it was equally possible that the deceased had taken voluntary retirement before attaining 60 years of age.

The Court held that where there is uncertainty regarding age, corroborative material must be considered and the post-mortem report assumes decisive significance.

"The P.M. report is based on an expert's opinion. In absence of any unimpeachable contrary evidence being shown to contradict the P.M. report showing that the expert's opinion is ex facie perverse, the Tribunal or the Court should not take any view contrary to the said expert's opinion, which has been arrived at by way of scientific assessment," the judgment stated.

Accordingly, the Court accepted the age of the deceased as 50 years and held that the correct multiplier under the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi was 13 and not five.

Future Prospects Cannot Be Denied Due To Family Pension

The Court also faulted the Tribunal for refusing future prospects solely because the widow was receiving family pension.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court held that there was no legal basis to deny future prospects on that ground.

"There was no scope for the Tribunal to hold anything otherwise even if the first appellant was receiving family pension," the Court observed.

The High Court further found that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the Tribunal's award, the Court directed the insurance company to recalculate compensation strictly in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

Accepting the claimants' computation, the Court held that after adjusting the amount already paid, a further sum of ₹13,80,404 was payable.

The Court also directed payment of 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until actual payment and ordered the insurer to make the payment within six weeks.

Case: Tara Sharma & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.,

Case No: FMA 41 of 2024

Click here to read order