MACA/1085/2024 of CHOLAMANDALAM M.S GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BBSR Vs SAMIRAN BIBI on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026 Order No.

03.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).

2. On perusal of the office note, it appears that notice issued in the admission mater to the Respondent No.1 and 2 has been returned back.

3. However, Mr. Bishnu Brata Singh, learned counsel, submitted that he has already entered his appearance to appear on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2.

4. Therefore, the notice on Respondent No.1 and 2 is stated to be sufficient.

5. A copy of the appeal memo has already been served on the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and 2.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimant No.1 & 2. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 02.05.2024 passed in M.A.C. Case No.97 of 2021 by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Bhadrak.

7. The Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereby challenging the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 02.05.2024 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,03,144/-.

8. Being aggrieved by the quantum of such compensation by the learned Tribunal, the Appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court by filing the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier, which is not conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarala Verma and others -Vrs..- Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 349. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company prayed for variation of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

9. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal, while fixing the quantum of compensation, has taken into account the income of the deceased Rs.311 per day as the deceased was working as a ‘Mason’. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed @ Rs.9,330/-. While calculating total compensation, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased to be 52 years and, accordingly, applied 11 multiplier. By applying such multiplier, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the Petitioners- Respondents No.1 & 2-Claimants are entitled to be a total compensation of Rs.9,03,144/- towards loss of dependency. Thus, the Tribunal has added Rs.1,00,000/- towards conventional heads. Accordingly, the total compensation has been assessed of Rs.10,03,144/-.

10. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that it was the consistent stand of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the age of the deceased was 65 years. However, the learned Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased to be 52 years. While assailing such stand of the Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased, learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the evidence on record. He further contended that as per the Aaadhar Card details of the deceased, his age was not 52 years, rather the same should be shown to be 65 years. Therefore, accepting the age of the deceased as 52 years by the Tribunal is erroneous and arbitrary. On such ground, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the finding on that score by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 & 2-

Claimants, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality accepting the age of deceased as 52 years and, accordingly, awarding the compensation as has been indicated in the impugned award dated 02.05.2024, at Annexure-1. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken note of all the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the fixation of the quantum of compensation and it has not committed any illegality while arriving at the quantum of compensation as has been awarded to the Respondents No.1 & 2-Claimants in the impugned judgment.

12. With regard to the age of the deceased, learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2-Claimants referred to the paragraph-12 of the judgment at Annexure-1 and submitted before this Court that although the Claimants failed to give any evidence with regard to their claim of the age of the deceased to be 52 years. However, the learned Tribunal, after discussing the evidence on record, i.e. the inquest report as well as the post mortem report, has come to a conclusion that the deceased was between 50 to 55 years. Such determination of age of the deceased by the learned Tribunal was disputed by the Appellant-Insurance Company. Finally, the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary evidence adduced by the Claimants in support of the age of the deceased, relying upon the other evidence available on record, has come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 52 years.

13. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company produced a copy of the Aadhaar Card of the deceased, which indicates that the date of birth of the deceased was

01.02.1956. A prayer was also made to take the same on record as additional evidence.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Claimants did not dispute the Aadhaar Card. A copy of the Aadhaar Card filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company.

15. On perusal of the Aadhaar Card of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was born on 01.02.1956. Therefore, at the time of the accident in the year 2021, the age of the deceased is 65 years. Therefore, taking into consideration the date of birth of the deceased as indicated in the Aadhaar Card, the deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident. Although the date of birth indicated in the Aadhaar Card is not conclusive proof of the date of birth of the deceased, there are no other evidence on record to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the age of the deceased at the time of accident of the deceased.

16. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned award dated 02.05.2024 at Annexure-1, this Court observes that the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the age of the deceased and the consequential application of the multiplier in terms and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarala Verma’s case (supra). On careful analysis of the evidence with regard to the age of the deceased, this Court observes that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the inquest report as well as the post mortem to arrive at a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 52 years, this Court is of the considered view that such finding with regard to the age of the deceased is not free from error and that the inquest report and the post mortem report cannot be the basis to determine the age of deceased. On the contrary, there is no evidence adduced by the Claimants with regard to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is required to determine the age of the deceased at the time of accident on the basis of the available evidence and to examine the applicability of the multiplier in the above noted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarala Verma’s case (supra).

17. On a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment as well as the materials on record, this Court found that the age of the deceased is neither 52 years as claimed by the Claimants, nor 65 years as claimed by the Insurance Company. There is no conclusive evidence from either side with regard to the age of the deceased. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court found that the approach of the learned Tribunal in applying 11 multiplier is unsustainable in law. Adopting this fact, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is of the view that the application of 9 multiplier would be just, fair and proper.

18. Accordingly, the award dated 02.05.2024, at Annexure-1, is modified to the extent that the income of the deceased shall be calculated by applying 9 multiplier instead of 11 multiplier. All other finding of the learned Tribunal shall remain intact. In view of the aforesaid finding of this Court, the awarded amount is modified to the extent that the Appellant-Insurance Company shall pay a total compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ten Thousand) with 6% interest from the date of the filing of the claim application till actual payment is made to the Respondents- Claimants No.1 & 2. Let the awarded amount be deposited before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from today.

19. The statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company be returned along with accrued interest on a proper application filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company.

20. With the aforesaid modification, the MACA stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge Debasis

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Aug-2026 19:19:25 Signature Not Verified