IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Death in motor accident – As to age of deceased, School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition – Age mentioned in Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of JJ Act – If genuineness of School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, said document has to be given due primacy.
(2) Appeal – Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of Court below.

ORDER

SANJAY KAROL J.,

Leave Granted.

2. These appeals are at the instance of the wife and sons¹[ Hereinafter “claimant-appellants”] of the deceased Silak Ram, who was on 4th August, 2015, travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12X-2820, along with one Rohit. Both were found lying injured on the side of the road. The former had succumbed to his injuries and the latter was taken for treatment to Medical College, Rohtak.

3. One Krishan who had discovered the deceased and the injured person on the road, reported the matter to the police and, during the investigation of such incident, the statement of the injured Rohit revealed the particulars of the offending vehicles. In connection thereto, F.I.R.No.481/2015 dated 4th August, 2015 under Sections 279/337, 304A was registered at Police Station, Sampla.

4. The claim petition, bearing No.25 of 2015 was instituted by the family members of the deceased on 16th December, 2015 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak²[Hereinafter “MACT”]. Vide Award dated 26th April, 2017 an amount of Rs.19,35,400/- was passed with an interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent-insurance company was directed to deposit the money into the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants. However, for claimant Nos.2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant time, their share of Rs.6 lakhs each was directed to be placed in fixed deposit till the age of majority or for a period of five years, whichever is later.

5. On appeal to the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th March, 2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of 2017 (O&M) and 6836 of 2017 (O&M) the amount awarded by the MACT was reduced to Rs.9,22,336/- noting that minimum wage rates issued by the Government are uniformly applicable throughout the State and, therefore, constitute a better measure for calculating the notional income of a deceased person, as opposed to special DC rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner of a District, and, therefore, would only be applicable to that particular district. Further, it was observed that with respect to the age at the time of death, the Aadhar Card of the deceased records his date of birth to be 1st January 1969; thus, the age comes to 47 years. Hence, the multiplier applicable would be 13.

6. The claimant-appellants, aggrieved by the reduction, have approached this Court. Before us, it was contended that the multiplier applicable would be 14 since, in the School Leave Certificate the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 7th October, 1970. His age, then at the time of the accident was 45 years. They were further aggrieved by the calculation of monthly income to be Rs.5,886/-.

7. Notice was issued on 17th October, 2023. The matter was then sent to Lok Adalat by way of an order dated 23rd July 2024. A subsequent order dated 2nd August 2024 records that the matter could not be settled.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The questions arising for consideration are - (a) in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, as in this case between the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and (b) whether in the facts of the case, the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, was justified and in accordance with law?

9. This Court is of the view that the High Court erred in undertaking the reduction as it has. The reasons therefor are recorded in the following paragraphs.

9.1 The general rule insofar as appellate proceedings are concerned is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the Court below. It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise it beyond redemption.

9.2 It is also well settled that an order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible, which, in the impugned order the Hig