Driving Licence & PAN Card More Reliable Than Post-Mortem Report For Determining Age In Motor Accident Compensation Claims: Rajasthan High Court
The Bench noted that the age mentioned in the post mortem report is merely an estimate based on anatomical examination.
Justice Sandeep Taneja, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has observed that for determining the age of a deceased victim in motor accident claims, statutory documents like Driving Licenses and Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards carry higher evidentiary value than age estimates provided in post-mortem reports.
The Bench clarified that while a post-mortem report is essential for ascertaining the nature of injuries and the cause of death, the age mentioned therein is merely an estimate based on anatomical examination. Consequently, the Court held that documents issued by government agencies, which specifically record a date of birth, are more reliable for the accurate assessment of compensation.
Justice Sandeep Taneja while adjudicating appeals arising from a common judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, which had initially relied on a post-mortem report to assess the victim's age, observed, “The post-mortem report is a document to ascertain nature of injuries and cause of death. The age mentioned in the postmortem report is estimated on the basis of anatomical examination and the same does not reflect the accurate age. In the case in hand, the claimants have relied upon driving licence and PAN card of the deceased, issued by respective government agencies, which have higher degree of reliability as compared to that of the post-mortem report”.
Advocate Archana Mantri appeared for the appellant-Insurance Company and Advocate Gunjan Pathak appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts, in a fatal road accident on January 7, 2011, a Scorpio car carrying five passengers collided with a stationary truck parked on the Alwar-Bhiwadi Highway. The collision, occurring in dense fog, resulted in the immediate death of two passengers, Santosh Kumar Sharma and Jagdish Prasad, and caused grievous injuries to three others.
Initial investigations by the police led to a charge-sheet against the car driver for rash and negligent driving and against the truck driver for causing obstruction on a public way. Thereafter, multiple claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dausa, which partly allowed the claims on December 01, 2015.
The Tribunal attributed 75% negligence to the car driver and 25% to the truck driver, apportioning the liability between United India Insurance (insurer of the car) and New India Insurance (insurer of the truck) accordingly. Both the insurance company and the legal representatives of the deceased filed appeals, the former challenging the liability and the latter seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation.
The Court meticulously evaluated the evidence, including eye-witness testimonies and the Naksha Mauka (Site Plan), concluding that the accident was a result of composite negligence. Regarding the enhancement of compensation for Santosh Kumar Sharma's family, the Court found two significant errors in the Tribunal's assessment.
First, the Tribunal had ignored the victim's last Income Tax Return, which reflected a higher income than the notional amount used for calculation. Second, it erroneously relied on the post-mortem report's age estimate of 48 years instead of the Driving License and PAN card which established the victim's age as 41 years at the time of the accident.
“In view thereof, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the post-mortem report to determine the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is determined as 41 years”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by United India Insurance Company, upholding the 75:25 liability ratio.
However, it allowed the claimants' appeal for enhancement, directing that the compensation be recalculated based on an annual income of ₹1,74,395 and a multiplier corresponding to the age of 41 years. The Court also modified the consortium award, granting ₹40,000 to each of the four dependents, totalling an enhanced compensation amount.
Cause Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v. Mamta Sharma & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:18711)
Appearances:
Appellant: Archana Mantroi, Advocate.
Respondents: Gunjan Pathak, Ritesh Jain, Dr. Ramdeo Arya, Ram Singh Bhati, Ravindra Kumar Paliwal with Abhishek Paliwal, Rahul Sharma, Anjali Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Naman Gurjar, K.K. Bhinda, Advocates.