Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a road accident on 05.02.2020 near Usha Marbles, Vanjipalayam Road, Tirupur, where the first respondent (claimant) sustained spinal cord injuries and other injuries. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000. The Tribunal (Special District Judge, Tiruppur) examined PW1 (claimant) and PW2, marked Exs.P1 to P13, and also considered Ex.C1 (disability certificate from Medical Board, Tiruppur) and Ex.X1 (PW2's Aadhar card). No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal accepted the claimant's case regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and held the respondents jointly and severally liable. Based on Ex.P7 (Aadhar card), the Tribunal fixed the claimant's age at 48 years and awarded Rs.32,52,144 as compensation with interest. The insurance company appealed, contending that the driver lacked a driving license (violation of policy condition), the age should be 53 years based on oral evidence, and the quantum was excessive. The High Court heard the parties at the admission stage. The court examined the oral evidence of PW1, noting that Exs.P2 and P3 (police records) recorded the age as 52 years, but the claimant affirmed that his name was not correctly given in those exhibits. The court held that the Aadhar card, being a pre-accident document, has greater probative value than police records prepared at the time of FIR. Thus, the age of 48 years was upheld. However, the court found that the Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 13, whereas as per Sarla Verma, for age 48, the multiplier should be 14. The court recalculated the loss of future income using the correct multiplier and also reduced compensation under other heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future medical expenses) as they were on the higher side. The total compensation was reduced from Rs.32,52,144 to Rs.28,00,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The insurance company was directed to deposit the modified amount within six weeks. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Age Determination - Aadhar Card vs. Police Records - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court held that Aadhar card, being a document that came into existence before the accident, has greater probative value than police records (FIR) which are prepared at the time of registration of the accident. The Tribunal's reliance on Aadhar card to fix age at 48 years was upheld, rejecting the insurance company's contention based on oral evidence and FIR entries. (Paras 7-8) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Functional Disability - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court modified the multiplier from 13 to 14 based on the age of the claimant (48 years) as per Sarla Verma case, and reduced the compensation for loss of future income accordingly. The court also reduced compensation under other heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses, finding them on the higher side. (Paras 9-10) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Quantum of Compensation - Reduction - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court reduced the total compensation from Rs.32,52,144 to Rs.28,00,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, and directed the insurance company to deposit the modified amount within six weeks. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the age of the claimant should be determined based on Aadhar card or police records, and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs.32,52,144 to Rs.28,00,000. The insurance company is directed to deposit the modified amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Age determination based on Aadhar card prevails over police records
- Functional disability assessment
- Multiplier selection based on age
- Compensation under various heads
