Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by the wife and sons (claimant-appellants) of deceased Silak Ram, who died in a road accident on 4th August 2015 while riding a motorcycle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rohtak, awarded compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- with 7.5% interest, calculating notional income based on rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner of Rohtak and applying a multiplier of 14 based on the deceased's age of 45 years as per his School Leaving Certificate (date of birth 07.10.1970). On appeal by the insurance company, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.9,22,336/-, holding that minimum wage rates issued by the State Government should be used instead of District Commissioner rates, and that the deceased's age should be taken as 47 years based on his Aadhar Card (date of birth 01.01.1969), applying a multiplier of 13. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Tribunal's award. The Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its view without finding perversity in the Tribunal's decision. On the issue of age, the Court ruled that a School Leaving Certificate has statutory recognition under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and must be given primacy over an Aadhar Card, which is not proof of date of birth as per UIDAI Circular No.08 of 2023 and the Office Memorandum dated 20.12.2018. Accordingly, the deceased's age was 45 years, warranting a multiplier of 14. The Court also upheld the Tribunal's use of District Commissioner rates for notional income, as there was no evidence to the contrary. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the MACT award.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Age Determination - Conflict between School Leaving Certificate and Aadhar Card - Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - School Leaving Certificate has statutory recognition and must be given primacy over Aadhar Card for proof of age, as Aadhar is not proof of date of birth per UIDAI Circular No.08 of 2023 and Office Memorandum dated 20.12.2018 - Held that the High Court erred in relying on Aadhar Card over School Leaving Certificate (Paras 9.4-9.6). B) Motor Accident Claims - Notional Income - Use of District Commissioner Rates - The High Court wrongly substituted the Tribunal's finding on notional income based on rates notified by Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, as there was no evidence that such rates were inapplicable - Appellate court should not interfere unless the finding is perverse or illegal - Held that the Tribunal's award on income was justified (Paras 9.1-9.3). C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - Based on School Leaving Certificate showing date of birth as 07.10.1970, deceased's age at accident (04.08.2015) was 45 years, attracting multiplier of 14 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC - Held that the High Court's use of multiplier 13 based on Aadhar Card was erroneous (Paras 6, 9.4).
Issue of Consideration
(a) In case of conflict between School Leaving Certificate and Aadhar Card regarding date of birth, which document is authoritative for determining age in motor accident claims? (b) Whether the High Court's reduction of compensation was justified?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 09.03.2023, and restored the MACT award dated 26.04.2017 granting Rs.19,35,400/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Law Points
- School Leaving Certificate is statutory proof of age under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015
- Aadhar Card is not proof of date of birth
- Appellate court should not substitute its view without perversity
- Notional income can be based on District Commissioner rates if not rebutted
