1 MAC No. 946 of 2022 2025:CGHC:55642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 946 of 2022  The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Authorized Signatory, Manager, Suit Claim Hub Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus 1.Smt. Alka Khakha Wd/o Late Sanju Khakha Aged About 38 Years; 2.David Khakha, S/o Late Sanju Khakha Aged About 20 Years; 3.Ku. Ritika Khakha, D/o Late Sanju Khakha Aged About 15 Years; 4.Ku. Anisha Khakha, D/o Late Sanju Khakha Aged About 10 Years; 5.Smt. Saloni Khakha, Wd/o Late Sitaram Khakha Aged About 60 Years Respondents No.3 & 4 are minor through natural guardian mother respondent No.1, Smt. Alka Khakha and all above Caste Uraon, R/o Village ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.11.17 16:51:30 +0530 2 MAC No. 946 of 2022 Ward No. 3, Koldhodhi (Patthalgaon) P.S. And Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). 6.Ramanand Vishwakarma, S/o Ramganesh Vishwakarma, R/o Village Ward 21, Surkaritola, Dhanpuri, P.S. Budhar, District Shahdol, (M.P.). 7.Tirupati Buildcon Power Limited, Green Garden Colony, Mungeli Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondents For Appellant : - Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : - Mr. G.P. Dewangan, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.11.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 19/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of 11,75,000/- ₹ as 3 MAC No. 946 of 2022 compensation along with interest to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. 2.Mr. Abhishek Misrha, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that as per the post-mortem report (Ex.A/5), the age of deceased Sanju Khakha was 44 years at the time of incident and multiplier of 14 was used by the Claims Tribunal, whereas, as per the Aadhaar card the age of the deceased was 51 years at the time of incident and therefore, appropriate multiplier be applied and the compensation amount be reduced suitably. 3.Mr. G.P. Dewangan, learned counsel for the claimants, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award. He would submit that the Aadhaar Card cannot be basis to determine the age of the deceased. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records precisely. 4 MAC No. 946 of 2022 5.As per the postmortem report (Ex.A/5) the age of deceased Sanju Khakha was mentioned as 44 years at the time of incident which has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal and accordingly, the multiplier of 14 has rightly been applied. However, Aadhaar Card has been filed which is not exhibited document and the same has not been proved during the course of conducting inquiry in an application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased to be 44 years at the time of accident and rightly applied the multiplier of 14. 6.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I do not find any merit in present appeal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit