The age of a deceased for compensation calculation must be determined by objective medical records like post-mortem reports. Receipt of family pension does not legally disqualify survivors from claiming future prospects and standardized conventional damages, as such compensation must be calculated to ensure justice in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts:

1. An appeal, on board, for final disposal.

2. This is an appeal filed by legal heirs of the deceased insured from the impugned judgment and order dated December 10, 2019 passed by the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, MVA).

3. The inescapable facts are only stated. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased insured, namely, Durga Prasad Sharma @ Bhattarai since deceased (hereinafter, the deceased). The first appellant is the widow of the deceased. The deceased was a primary school teacher and working under Human Resources Department, Government of Sikkim. He died on October 18, 2013, out of a motor accident. The deceased was insured with the respondent insurance company. Since the death was unnatural, post-mortem had taken place in usual course and the post- mortem report dated October 19, 2013, (hereinafter, P.M. report) is at page 42 of the appeal paper book. The P.M. report records that as on the date of death the deceased was 50 years of age.

4. The appellants then applied under Section 166 of MVA before the jurisdictional tribunal claiming compensation as mentioned in serial no. 22 of the claim petition, at page 1 of the paper book. The claim petition, upon holding the necessary witness action of the respective witnesses, had been disposed of under the said impugned judgment dated December 10, 2019, at page 25 of the paper book (hereinafter, the impugned judgment). The impugned judgment shows issues were framed by the tribunal and the decision was rendered with reasons. The operative part of the impugned judgment shows that compensation was awarded for a sum of Rs.6,00,540/- (at page 31 of the paper book). The direction for payment was also there along with interest. The relevant finding and observation of the tribunal is quoted below:

“ISSUE NO.1 TO 8 All these issues have been taken up simultaneously for the sake of discussion and to avoid repetation at the time of discussion.

On perusal of record I find that the Claimants examined as many as three witnesses in this case. P.W.1 Tara Sharma who is the Claimant No.1 and wife of deceased almost corroborated the claim petition. It is true that no vehicle number has been given in FIR but from the charge sheet which has been submitted in FIR No. 530 dated 19.10.2013 the vehicle no. WB- 02F-3990 is involved, which is subject matter of this case. I also find that in the said accident on that date this deceased Durga Prasad Sharma @ Bhattarai got injury and later died. From the evidence of P.W.3 who claimed himself as eye witness and his name has been reflected in charge sheet as witness stated before this Court that he saw the accident in question in which offending car being no. WB-02F-3990 dashed the motorcycle in question from its behind on which this deceased was coming. The said charge sheet has been marked Exhibit-8 in this case. I also find from record that contrary has not been proved in this case that this P.W.3 was not the eye witness at that time. When I perused Exhibit-1 i.e. Voter Identity Card of Durga Prasad Sharma I find that his age was written as 44 years in the year 2009 and when 1 calculate his age on the date of accident then it will come to 48 years. Whereas it has been claim