Calcutta HC Sets Aside Tribunal's Age Finding in Motor Accident Claim, Holds Post-Mortem Report Sacrosanct on Age

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri held that a post-mortem report constitutes conclusive expert evidence on age, overturning a tribunal's presumption-based finding that slashed compensation by two-thirds.

The legal heirs of Durga Prasad Sharma @ Bhattarai, a primary school teacher employed under the Human Resources Department, Government of Sikkim, who died on 18 October 2013 in a motor accident, received a substantially enhanced compensation award on 21 May 2026. Justice Aniruddha Roy, sitting singly at the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, allowed FMA 41 of 2024 and directed National Insurance Company Limited to pay an additional Rs 13,80,404/- over and above the Rs 6,00,540/- already awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The central issue was whether the tribunal was entitled to presume the deceased was 60 years old at the time of death — and thereby apply a multiplier of 5 — when the post-mortem report recorded his age as 50 years. The High Court held it was not.

The Accident, the Claim, and the Tribunal's Award

Durga Prasad Sharma died on 18 October 2013. A post-mortem was conducted the following day, 19 October 2013, and the report recorded his age as 50 years. The deceased was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. His widow, Tara Sharma, and other legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the jurisdictional tribunal.

The tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence from three witnesses: the widow (PW-1), a bank official from State Bank of Sikkim (PW-2), and an eyewitness to the accident (PW-3). PW-3, whose name appeared in the charge sheet in FIR No. 530 dated 19 October 2013, deposed that the offending vehicle, bearing registration number WB-02F-3990, struck the motorcycle ridden by the deceased from behind. The tribunal accepted that the accident had occurred and that the deceased was entitled to compensation.

However, the tribunal's calculation of compensation was sharply contested. The tribunal noted that the deceased's voter identity card, Exhibit-1, showed his age as 44 years in 2009. Calculating forward to 2013, that would place him at approximately 48 years. The claimants had also stated that the deceased was a retired person at the time of the accident. The tribunal took judicial notice of this and concluded that if he was retired, his minimum age must have been 60 years. The bank official's evidence that the deceased held a pension account was treated as corroboration. On this basis, the tribunal applied a multiplier of 5.

Using the deceased's monthly income of Rs 14,777/- as reflected in the bank statement, the tribunal computed annual income at Rs 1,77,324/-, applied the multiplier of 5 to arrive at Rs 8,86,620/-, deducted one-third as personal expenditure, and arrived at Rs 5,91,080/-. Adding Rs 2,500/- for loss of estate, Rs 2,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs 5,000/- for loss of consortium, the total came to Rs 6,00,580/-. The tribunal declined to award future prospects because the claimants were receiving family pension. It also declined to award interest, holding that the delay in proceedings was attributable to the claimants rather than the insurance company.

The Grounds of Appeal

The appellants, represented by Ms. Rima Sarkar, challenged the impugned judgment of 10 December 2019 on three principal grounds. First, the multiplier of 5 was wrong; the post-mortem report confirmed the deceased was 50 years old, which under the settled multiplier table warranted a multiplier of 13. Second, the tribunal had erred in refusing future prospects solely because the widow was receiving family pension; the law did not permit such a refusal. Third, the amounts awarded under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium were far below the figures mandated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Ms. Supriya Singh, appearing for the insurance company, opposed the appeal. She argued that the evidence on record — the widow's own admission that the deceased was receiving pension before his death, and the bank official's confirmation of a pension account — established that the deceased was a retired person and therefore at least 60 years old. She pointed to the widow's evidence recorded on 20 September 2016, which showed the widow was receiving family pension of Rs 20,000/- in 2016 and Rs 14,777/- in 2013 after her husband's death. The insurance company's position was that the tribunal had correctly appreciated this evidence and the award was just and lawful.

The High Court's Reasoning on Age and the Post-Mortem Report

Justice Aniruddha Roy examined the evidence carefully. The widow had deposed that her husband was receiving pension prior to his death and that she began receiving family pension only after his death. The bank official corroborated that the deceased maintained a pension account. The Court accepted these facts but drew a different conclusion from them.

The critical question was whether the evidence of pension receipt established that the deceased had retired at the age of 60 on superannuation, as opposed to having taken voluntary retirement at an earlier age. The Court found that no material before the tribunal — and none before the High Court in appeal — established when exactly the deceased had retired or whether his retirement was on superannuation at 60 or voluntary retirement at an earlier age. The insurance company had not produced any contrary material during cross-examination of the widow or the other witnesses to establish that the deceased died at or after the age of 60.

The tribunal's conclusion that the deceased was 60 years old rested entirely on a presumption: that because he was retired, he must have been at least 60. The High Court held this was a rebuttable presumption, and the post-mortem report rebutted it. The P.M. report, prepared by an expert on 19 October 2013, recorded the deceased's age as 50 years. It had not been challenged. No material was placed before the Court to show that the expert's opinion was perverse.

The Court laid down the principle clearly: where doubt arises about the age of a deceased in a motor accident claim, the post-mortem report, being based on scientific assessment by an expert, should be the sole guiding factor and must be treated as sacrosanct. In the absence of unimpeachable contrary evidence, neither the tribunal nor the Court should take a view contrary to the expert's opinion. Relying also on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunita and Others v. Vinod Singh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 586, which had similarly held that a post-mortem report is a scientific assessment of age and should be accepted in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, the High Court set aside the tribunal's finding on age and held that the deceased was 50 years old on the date of his death.

Multiplier, Future Prospects, and Conventional Heads

With the age fixed at 50 years, the applicable multiplier under the table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, as affirmed in Pranay Sethi, is 13 for the age group of 46 to 50 years. The Court directed that the multiplier of 13 be applied in place of the tribunal's multiplier of 5.

On future prospects, the Court held that the law in Pranay Sethi left no scope for the tribunal to deny future prospects merely because the widow was receiving family pension. The insurance policy is a product of contract, and the entitlement to future prospects flows from the law as settled by the Supreme Court. For a deceased who was on a fixed salary and between 40 to 50 years of age, Pranay Sethi mandates an addition of 25% of established income towards future prospects. The tribunal's refusal to award future prospects was set aside.

On the conventional heads, the tribunal had awarded Rs 2,500/- for loss of estate, Rs 2,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs 5,000/- for loss of consortium. The Court found these amounts to be in gross violation of paragraph 52 of Pranay Sethi, which fixed Rs 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs 15,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs 40,000/- for loss of consortium as base figures, subject to enhancement at 10% every three years. The deceased died in 2013, and the tribunal's judgment was delivered in 2019 — well after the Supreme Court's judgment in Pranay Sethi on 31 October 2017. The tribunal's findings on all three conventional heads were set aside.

The Court also addressed interest. The tribunal had declined to award interest on the ground that the delay was attributable to the claimants. The High Court directed interest at 6% per annum on the differential amount of Rs 13,80,404/- from the date of the claim application, 14 March 2016, until actual payment.

Outcome

Justice Aniruddha Roy allowed FMA 41 of 2024 and set aside the impugned judgment dated 10 December 2019 in its entirety. The Court directed National Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs 13,80,404/- as the differential compensation amount, calculated strictly in accordance with Pranay Sethi, after giving credit for the Rs 6,00,540/- already paid. Interest at 6% per annum on the differential amount is payable from 14 March 2016 until the date of actual payment. The entire sum, including interest, is to be paid within six weeks from the date of communication of the judgment. No order as to costs was made.