IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No.165 of 2024

Bablu @ Chandveer and others …… ..Appellants

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited and another

……… Respondents

Judgment reserved on: 09.10.2025 Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Mangha Ram Kashyap, learned counsel for the

appellants.

Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the

respondent/insurance company.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2023, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli, in MACP No. 02 of 2022, Bablu @ Chandveer and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby a sum of Rs. 9,26,800/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was awarded as compensation in favour of the

claimants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2021, Ankit alias Ankit Kumar, employed as a

tractor driver in Village Lacheda, was returning on foot to his native village Hathi Karoda at about 6:30 a.m. When he reached near the Indian Oil Petrol Pump on the Bypass Road, he was hit by an unknown vehicle being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot. A shopkeeper informed the police, who prepared the panchnama treating the deceased as an unidentified person. The post-mortem was conducted at the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Subsequently, the claimants identified the deceased as Ankit Kumar at Police Station Shahpur and performed his last rites. An FIR was later lodged on

22.07.2021 against an unknown driver and vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal are contrary to law and facts of the case and are, therefore, liable to be modified. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the age of the deceased as 27 years, solely on the basis of the post- mortem report, while ignoring other documentary evidence available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, as per the family register, the year of birth of the deceased was recorded as 2005, making him 16 years old on the date of the accident; as per the Aadhaar Card, his date of birth was 01.01.2001, making him 20 years, 6 months, and 12 days old; whereas, as per the post-mortem report, his age was assessed as 27 years. He has further argued that the family register is the most reliable document being a contemporaneous public record, whereas the age mentioned in the post-mortem report is merely an approximate estimation based on physical appearance, without any ossification (bone) test. Therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in mechanically accepting the age as 27 years.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income and dependency of the deceased, which has resulted in an inadequate award of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Tribunal wrongly deducted 6. ½ towards personal expenses, whereas the deceased was living in a joint family consisting of his widowed mother and brothers. Hence, the deduction ought to have been restricted to 1/3rd, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 2020.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation. He has further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. He has further contended that the panchnama did not specifically state that the death occurred as