1 2025:CGHC:48129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 493 of 2021 The New India Assurance Comapny Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Judev Complex, Gamhariya Road, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. .........................(Non Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Tirkey Wd/o Late Duhan Ram Tirkey Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 1) 2 - Minor Anchal Tirki D/o Late Duhan Ram Tirkey Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Their - Mother Smt. Sarita Tirkey (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ................................ (Applicant No. 2) 3 - Minor Priyanshu Tirkey S/o Late Duhan Ram Tirkey Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their - Mother Smt. Sarita Tirkey (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...................... (Applicant No. 3) 4 - Minor Roshan Tirkey S/o Duhan Ram Tirkey Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their - Mother Smt. Sarita Tirkey (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. .......................................... (Applicant No. 4) 5 - Minor Archana Tirkey D/o Late Duhan Ram Tirkey Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their - Mother Smt. Sarita Tirkey (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ....................................... (Applicant No. 5) 6 - Navada Ram Alias Banda Bhagat S/o Late Rangsaay Bhagat Aged About Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 62 Years R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh...................... (Applicant No. 6) 7 - Asarita Bhagat W/o Navada Ram Alias Banda Bhagat Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Balajhar Ghoghara, Post Office Tamata, Tehsil - Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh....................... (Applicant No. 7) 8 - Rakesh Kumar Giri S/o Devkumar Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Driver, R/o Kotigaon Gosaipur, Police Station - Rampur, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. ................................. ( Non- Applicant No. 1) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 7 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 18/09/2025 1. The insurance company has filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, in Claim Case No. 01/2020 dated 17.03.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of 48,37,730 with interest @ 6% per annum on ₹ account of the death of Duhan Ram Tirkey. 2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that at the time of the accident, i.e., 21.10.2019, the age of the deceased, according to the Aadhaar card, was 36 years. He would contend that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been moved along with a copy of the Aadhaar card, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is recorded as 05.07.1983; but the learned Tribunal considered age of the deceased 35 years and committed an error in applying the multiplier of 16. He would submit that the correct 3 multiplier should be 15; thus, he would pray to modify the award accordingly. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased on the basis of the postmortem report. The insurance company failed to place on record any document before the learned Tribunal with regard to proof of age of the deceased. He would contend that the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of the age of a person and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been moved, wherein a copy of the Aadhaar card has been placed on record as proof of age of deceased. According to the Aadhaar card of the deceased, his date of birth is 05.07.1983, thus, on the date of accident, i.e., 21.10.2019, he was more than 36 years of age. However, Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of the date of birth of a person. The deceased was a government servant working in the Fisheries Department. The insurance company ought to have placed on record a copy of the service book of deceased to prove his date of birth. In absence of relevant documentary evidence, the Aadhaar card cannot be accepted as a valid document with regard to proof of date of birth of the deceased. Accordingly, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is hereby rejected. 6. In the postmortem report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 35 years. The postmortem report was within the knowledge of the insurance company, but no effort was made to rebut such finding. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the age of the deceased on the basis of the postmortem report and passed the award accordingly. 4 7. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased is a finding of fact, and I do not find any good ground to alter or modify the same. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim