1 CGHC010074602022 2026:CGHC:41817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date which the case is reserved for order The date when Judgment is pronounced The date when the Judgment is uploaded 16-09-2026 25-9-2026 26-9-2026 MAC No. 329 of 2022 1. Panch Bai Lahre W/o Ramcharan Lahre Aged About 59 Years 2. Ramcharan Lahre S/o. Kanhaiyalal Lahre, aged about 62 years Both R/o House No. 31/o4, Ward No. -10, P.S. Pandriya, District- Kabirdhham (C.G.) (Wrongly Mention As Kawardha) --- Appellants versus 1 - Jhumuk Lal Sahu S/o Nakulram Sahu, Aged About 39 Years The Orienatal Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rama Trade Center, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District – Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Vipul Kumar Vishvas, S/o Shri S.K. Vishvas, Aged About 41 Years R/o Jinat Green Vihar, Murra Bhaththa Road, Ward No. - 45, P.S. Torwa, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur(C.G.) 3 - Branch Manager, The Orienatal Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rama Trade Center, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District – Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondents For appellant : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Adv. 2 (HON’BLE MR. SANTOSH SHARMA, J.) CAV JUDGMENT 1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 1424/2019 vide award dated 28.10.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 13,06,648/- to the claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization, fastening liability upon the respondent No. 3/Insurance company to pay the compensation. 2. As per the claim petition, on 19.09.2019, deceased Lav Singh Lahre was travelling from Mopka to Tarbahar, as pillion rider on motorcycle of his friend Virendra Tiwari bearing registration No. CG 22/1282. At about 2:30 p.m., they had reached Mopka Road (Rahul Dhaba), when the driver of a truck bearing registration No. CG 10 C/6314 (in short, referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) coming from behind, drove it rashly and recklessly, hitting Luv Singh Lahare, who was sitting on the pillion, causing an accident. Luv Singh Lahare suffered serious head injuries and was admitted to Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur, where he died during treatment. His friend Virendra Tiwari suffered injuries on his right knee. The incident was reported to the Sarkanda police station, District Bilaspur, on which, Crime No. 849/2019 under Sections 279, 337, 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. The appellants/claimants, who are the parents of deceased Lav Singh Lahre, had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), claiming compensation of 3 Rs.70,27,800/- on account of his death in a motor accident that occurred on 19.09.2019. The Tribunal, however, awarded a total sum of Rs.13,06,648/- as compensation, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its actual payment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding an inadequate amount of compensation despite the evidence available on record. It is contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. It has further applied a multiplier of 17, whereas, having regard to the age of the deceased, an appropriate multiplier of ‘18’ ought to have been applied. It is also contended that the amount awarded towards consortium is erroneous and that lesser amounts have been awarded under the other conventional heads. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the instant appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, after duly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly awarded the compensation. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 6. None appears for respondent no. 1 and 2, though served. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 13,06,648/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case? 10. Firstly, source of income of the deceased is being considered. In this regard, the Claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as computer operator and he was going to be appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force, Bilaspur thereby he would earn Rs. 18,000/- per month, total he would earn Rs. 33,000/-. In this regard, learned Tribunal has rightly held that no documentary evidence has been led by the claimants. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2019 when the notional income of the unskilled labour was Rs. 8,660/- in the area where the deceased resided, the monthly income of the deceased is rightly taken as Rs. 8,660/- i.e. Rs. 1,03,920/- p.a. Learned Tribunal assessed income on above rate of amount, which is just and proper. 11. So far as the age of deceased is concerned, P.W. 1 Ramcharan Lahre in his statement under Order 18 Rule 4, CPC has stated that deceased was 24 years of age. This point could not be rebutted in cross-examination of the witness, but learned Tribunal assessed the income on the basis of date of birth mentioned in Adhar Card. At this 5 stage, one important issue emerges, as to whether the date of birth mentioned in the Adhar Card can be taken into consideration while computing compensation ? 12. While dealing with determination of age of a person, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saroj and Others Vs. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company and others [2024 SCC OnLine 3038], has held as under :- “9.4 The second aspect is the age of the deceased. The High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased, i.e., 1st January, 1969. However, as submitted by the claimant-appellants, the School Leaving Certificate records the date of birth of the deceased to be 7th October, 1970. This will affect the multiplier to be applied. Let us now consider this question. “……..Whether the Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person's age, has come up for consideration before some High Courts, albeit in the context of different statutes. We shall refer to a few instances but, prior to doing so, it is also important to take note of the purpose behind introduction of the Aadhar Scheme. In the Constitution Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (5- J.) [(2019 (1) SCC 1]4 Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. wrote as hereinbelow extracted, encapsulating the object and purpose of Aadhar:— “24. Before adverting to the discussion on various issues that have been raised in these petitions, it would be apposite to first understand the structure of the Aadhaar Act and how it operates, having regard to various provisions contained therein. UIDAI was established in the year 2009 by an administrative order i.e. by resolution of the Govt. of India, Planning Commission, vide notification dated January 28, 6 2009. The object of the establishment of the said Authority was primarily to lay down policies to implement the Unique Identification Scheme (for short the ‘UIS’) of the Government, by which residents of India were to be provided unique identity number. The aim was to serve this as proof of identity, which is unique in nature, as each individual will have only one identity with no chance of duplication. Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes. This was the primary reason, viz. to ensure correct identification of targeted beneficiaries for delivery of various subsidies, benefits, services, grants, wages and other social benefits schemes which are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India … Summing up the Scheme: 62. The whole architecture of Aadhaar is devised to give unique identity to the citizens of this country. No doubt, a person can have various documents on the basis of which that individual can establish her identity. It may be in the form of a passport, Permanent Account Number (PAN) card, ration card and so on. For the purpose of enrollment itself number of documents are prescribed which an individual can produce on the basis of which Aadhaar card can be issued. Thus, such documents, in a way, are also proof of identity. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Aadhaar card as a means of identity and other documents through which identity can be established. Enrollment for Aadhaar card also requires giving of demographic information as well as biometric information which is in the form of iris and fingerprints. This process eliminates any chance of duplication. ….. It is for this reason the Aadhaar card is known as Unique Identification (UID). Such an identity is unparalleled.” 7 (Emphasis supplied) 9.5 Turning back to the question of whether Aadhar Card can serve as a proof of age, a perusal of some High Court judgments reveals that this question has been considered on quite a few occasions in the context of the JJ Act. Illustratively, in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P.[2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919] a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations have been made in Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P.[2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740] holding that if the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh v. State of Punjab[2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553] held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof of age”. Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor Nadia v. State of Punjab[2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514], Muskan v. State of Punjab [2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649] as well as several other orders/judgments, in various contexts. Views aligning with the one referred to above have been taken by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P.[2019 SCC OnLine All 7085]; the Himachal Pradesh High Court in [2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965] and the High Court of Kerala in Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814]. 9.6 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of its Circular No. 08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth….. 9.7 Judicial notice has also been taken of the circular above. Recently, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in 8 Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India [Order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022] in view thereof directed the release of the petitioner's pension in accordance with the date as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration. 9.8 In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi16 a learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a case where the petitioner-mother sought a writ of habeas corpus for her daughter, recorded a statement made for and on behalf of UIDAI that “Aadhar Card may not be used as proof of date of birth. 10. That being the position, as it stands with respect to the determination of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the claimant-appellants, based on the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, we find no error in the learned MACT's determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate.” 13. In view of the dictum laid down in the aforesaid case law, it is clear that the Aadhaar Card cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the age of a person. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased to be 26 years on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in his Aadhaar Card. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the age of the deceased solely on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Aadhaar Card. Ramcharan Lahre (A.W.1), in his statement recorded under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC, has stated that the deceased was 24 years of age. The age of the deceased has 9 also been recorded as 24 years in the post-mortem report. In these circumstances, the age of the deceased is taken to be 24 years. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs. 41,568/--, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 1,45,488. After 50% deduction towards his personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 72,744/- per annum. As discussed above, the age of the deceased being 24 years at the time of incident, therefore, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], multiplier of 18 would be used in in place of 17 as applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 13,09,392/-. This apart, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. But, the claimants, being the mother and father of the deceased, both are entitled to parental consortium, in the light of the directions laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]. Accordingly, a sum of 40,000 ₹ each, totalling 80,000, is awarded to the claimants towards loss of ₹ consortium. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants is calculated as follows:- Sl. No. Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 10 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 12,36,648/- Rs.13,09,392/- 2. Towards loss of estate. Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Towards loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs.80,000/- Total compensation Rs. 13,06,648/- Rs.14,19,392/- 15. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.13,06,648/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 1,12,744/- (14.19.392 - 13,06,648 = 1,12,744/-) over and above the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants/appellants shall be entitled to a total enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,12,744/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Rest of the terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) Judge AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.09.26 11:41:03 +0530