[2025:RJ-JP:20198] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2887/2019 National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, L.i.c. Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Sunita W/o Late Dharmapal Alias Dharmeer, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Gram Veerthla, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), 2. Sapna D/o Late Dharmpal Alias Dharmveer, Aged About 12 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Gram Veerthla, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sunita. 3. Radha D/o Late Dharmpal Alias Dharmveer, Aged About 10 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Gram Veerthla, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sunita. 4. Khushbu D/o Late Dharmpal Alias Dharmveer, Aged About 8 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Gram Veerthla, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sunita. 5. Shivam S/o Late Dharmpal Alias, Aged About 5 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Gram Veerthla, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sunita. 6. Unnas Khan, By Caste Mev, R/o Gram Kakrali, Police Station Sadar District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. R.j. 02-J.s.-1805) 7. Sahun Khan S/o Suleman Khan, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Mev, R/o Gram Utwal, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan ) (Owner Of Vehicle Motor Motor Cycle No. R.j. 02-J.s.-1805) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Tyagi, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Babu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 13/05/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:20198] (2 of 3) [CMA-2887/2019] 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company with a challenge to judgment dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Petition No. 669/2015. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant appearing through VC submits that the learned Tribunal, while determining the age of the deceased Dharmpal @ Dharmveeer, has not appreciated the documentary evidence available on record and wrongly came to the conclusion that the deceased was of the age group of 36 to 40 years. He further submits that the voter ID card issued in the name of the deceased reveals the age of the deceased was 54 years on the date of accident, therefore the calculation of the compensation amount treating the deceased of age group of 36 to 40 years is not legally sustainable and the claimants are entitled for compensation amount on the basis of the age of the deceased as 54 years. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents submits that the age of the deceased Dharmpal @ Dharmveer is about 34 years and while conducting the postmortem of the deceased, his age was mentioned as 34 years as is evident from the postmortem report-Ex. 10. He also submits that the family ration card of the deceased family also reflects that the age of the deceased is about 37 years. 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the record. 5. The only dispute raised in this appeal is determination of age of the deceased Dharmpal @ Dharmveer in the age group of 36 to 40 years. [2025:RJ-JP:20198] (3 of 3) [CMA-2887/2019] 6. The family ration card of the deceased family was issued in the year 2013 i.e. two years prior to the accident which occurred in the year 2015 and as per the family ration card, the age of the deceased was about 35 years at the time of accident. The postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex. 10 also reflects the age of the deceased as 34 years. There is nothing to discard the family ration card which has been issued two years prior to the accident. The only document upon which the counsel for the appellant is relying is the voter ID Card issued by the Election Commission. 7. Normally it is seen that there are various discrepancies about the age of the voters in the voter ID Card issued by the Election Commission. The family ration card of a family are prepared by the local authorities on the recommendation of the local reputed public representative after making due inquiry and in such circumstances, the details given in the family ration cards including the number of family members and their age cannot be doubted until and unless there is some contrary evidence. 8. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the findings and observations of the Tribunal as regards the age of the deceased Dharmpal @ Dharmveer for calculation of compensation amount by applying the multiplier of 15 for determination of loss of income. 9. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as having no merit. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /85