Postmortem Report On Deceased’s Age Can Be Relied On In Motor Accident Cases In Absence Of Any Unimpeachable Contrary Evidence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court was considering an appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased against the impugned judgment passed by the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA).

The Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held, “The impugned judgment shows that the tribunal had proceeded and arrived at its conclusion that the deceased died at the age of 60 years and not before that merely on the basis of presumption, which is rebuttable on the basis of the P.M. report.”

“When there is no conclusive, decisive and definite evidence with regard to the actual age of the deceased as on the date of his death, the principle of corroboration would apply, when sufficient and constructive material is available before the Tribunal or this Court in appeal. In that case, the P.M. report should be taken as a conclusive and decisive evidence at page 42 to the paper book, which shows that as on the date of the death the deceased was aged 50 years. P.M. report is based on an expert’s opinion, the same is not challenged in the instant case. 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”, it added.

Advocate Rima Sarkar represented the Appellant, while Advocate Supriya Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased insured. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased. The deceased was a primary school teacher and working under the Human Resources Department, Government of Sikkim. He died in a motor accident. The deceased was insured with the respondent insurance company. As per the postmortem report, on the date of death, the deceased was 50 years of age.

The appellants then applied under Section 166 of MVA before the jurisdictional tribunal, claiming compensation. The claim petition, upon holding the necessary witness action of the respective witnesses, was disposed of under the said impugned judgment by awarding a sum of Rs 6,00,540. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellants preferred the appeal.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Tribunal had taken judicial notice of that fact and came to a finding that his minimum age would be 60 years on the date of the accident. In support of its finding, the Tribunal had also observed that, as per the evidence of the bank official, the deceased had a pension account. This further led the Tribunal to hold that the deceased on the date of the accident could not have been less than 60 years, and, accordingly, the multiplier factor was considered to be 5 by the Tribunal.

The Bench held that the postmortem report should be taken as conclusive and decisive evidence, which showed that as on the date of the death, the deceased was aged 50 years. “Hence, this Court is of the considered and firm view that 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”, it added.

The Bench thus held that on the date of death of the deceased, the age of the deceased should be accepted and considered as 50 years and not otherwise, as held by the Tribunal. “The finding of the Tribunal to the extent of ascertaining the age of the deceased stands set aside and quashed”, it stated.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “The entire payment for a sum of Rs.13,80,404/-, as mentioned above, and the interest to be calculated thereupon, as directed above, shall be paid to the appellants by the insurance company positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this judgment and order.”

Cause Title: Tara Sharma and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited (Case No.: FMA 41 OF 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Rima Sarkar, Sidhi Sethia, Suparna Pau

Respondent: Advocates Supriya Singh, Susmita Ghosh

Click here to read/download Order