Post-mortem report based on scientific assessment must prevail where age of deceased is in doubt: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that where there is uncertainty regarding the age of a deceased victim in a motor accident claim, the age recorded in the post-mortem report, being founded on scientific assessment and expert opinion, should be accepted in the absence of unimpeachable evidence to the contrary.Justice Aniruddha Roy made the observation while allowing an appeal preferred by the widow and legal heirs of a deceased government school teacher and enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Tribunal Applied Multiplier Of 5 Treating Deceased As 60 Years OldDurga Prasad Sharma alias Bhattarai, a primary school teacher under the Government of Sikkim, died in a motor accident on 18.10.2013.

His legal heirs instituted a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.By an award dated 10.12.2019, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,00,540. While assessing compensation, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was at least 60 years old at the time of death. The finding was based on the circumstance that the deceased had been receiving pension and that after his death, his widow started receiving family pension.

Proceeding on that basis, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 5. It also declined to grant future prospects on the ground that the widow was receiving family pension. Nominal amounts were awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, and no interest was granted.Aggrieved thereby, the claimants approached the High Court.Before the High Court, the claimants argued that the post-mortem report recorded the age of the deceased as 50 years and therefore the multiplier applicable was 13 in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. DTC.The insurance company defended the award contending that since the deceased had been receiving pension, it could safely be presumed that he had retired upon attaining the age of 60 years.The Court found that no material had been produced either before the Tribunal or before the appellate court to establish that the deceased had in fact retired after attaining the age of superannuation.The Court noted that the Tribunal had proceeded merely on presumptions while concluding that the deceased had crossed 60 years of age.Post-Mortem Report Must Be Treated as Guiding FactorThe Court observed that where no conclusive or decisive evidence regarding the age of the deceased is available, corroborative material assumes significance and the post-mortem report becomes an important piece of evidence.Justice Roy held that a post-mortem report is based on scientific assessment and expert opinion and therefore cannot be brushed aside in the absence of reliable evidence showing that the opinion recorded therein is erroneous.The Court observed:"In such a situation where any doubt arises with regard to ascertaining the age of the deceased, the expert's opinion being the said P.M. report should be the sole guiding factor and must be taken as sacrosanct."It further held that in the absence of any unimpeachable evidence contradicting the expert opinion contained in the post-mortem report, neither the Tribunal nor the Court ought to take a contrary view.Accordingly, the High Court accepted the age of the deceased as 50 years and held that the multiplier applicable would be 13 and not 5.The High Court also disagreed with the Tribunal's refusal to award future prospects merely because the widow was receiving family pension. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court held that compensation payable under an insurance policy flow from statutory and contractual principles and receipt of family pension cannot be a ground to deny future prospects.The Court observed that there was no scope for the Tribunal to hold otherwise in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court.The findings of the Tribunal denying future prospects were consequently set aside.The Court further found that the Tribunal had awarded amounts under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium in complete disregard of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi.Observing that the Supreme Court had standardized the compensation payable under these heads, the Court held that the Tribunal's assessment could not be sustained and directed that the compensation be recalculated strictly in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.Taking note of the computation placed before it by the claimants in accordance with Pranay Sethi, the Court recorded that after adjusting the amount already received, a further sum of Rs.13,80,404 remained payable.The Court directed the insurance company to pay the differential amount together with interest at 6% per annum from 14.03.2016, being the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment.Allowing the appeal, Justice Roy set aside the Tribunal's award and directed the insurer to release the balance compensation along with interest within six weeks.Case Title: Tara Sharma & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

& Anr.Case No.: FMA 41 of 2024Court: Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri)Coram: Justice Aniruddha RoyDecision Date: May 21, 2026(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)