The court affirmed the deduction of 50% for living expenses for a bachelor in compensation cases, prioritizing postmortem findings over Aadhaar as proof for age verification.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.

1. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 71/2019 dated 29.07.2021, whereby the learned Claims Triubnal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.14,70,800/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Santu Ram.

2. The facts, in brief, are that deceased- Santu Ram was helper in Truck bearing registration No. CG-19 / H-2241 and it was dashed by the Trailer bearing registration No. CG-13/LA-7002 on 25/05/2017. In the said accident Santu Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to death.

3. Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 19 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal deducted 1/2 of the income for personal and living expenses of the deceased which is erroneous. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 .

4. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal rightly deducted 1/2 of the income of the deceased for personal and living expenses. Mr. Dashrath Gupta has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Smt. Sarla Verma (supra).

5. In MAC No. 814/2021, Mr. Dasrath Gupta would submit that according to Aadhaar Card, which has been placed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, date of birth of the deceased was 28.03.2003 and thus, on the date of accident his age was 14 years of age, but the learned Claims Tribunal placing reliance on the postmortem report considered his age 19 years and applied multiplier of 18. He would pray to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and would pray to modify the award accordingly.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Divyanand Patel would submit that Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of its Circular No. 08 of 2023, has stated, that an Aadhar Card, can be used to establish identity, but it is not per se proof of date of birth. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saroj & Ors. Vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 23939-23940 of 2023.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

8. In Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of deduction in paragraph no. 31 held as under:-

“31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant, and the mother alone will be considered as a dependa