NIRODINI ROY Vs. N I A CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) ASSAILING the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in connection with M. A. C Case No. 408 of 1996 the appeal is filed. The learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 24. 3. 1998 allowed the application filed by the appellants claiming compensation in terms of provision under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and allowed a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- payable by both the Insurance Companies jointly in favour of the appellants. The application under section 163a of the said Act was instituted consequent to the death of the husband of the appellant who according to the recital in the application met with death while he was travelling by maxi taxi bearing No. WB-71/6265 which was proceeding from Dhupguri to huslurdanga More. The said vehicle met with an accident after it collided with another vehicle bearing No. WGT-2200 which was coming from the opposite direction. A short question that arises in this appeal as argued by the learned advocate for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation in terms of structured formula as provided under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Second Schedule failed to arrive at a correct finding so far as the age of the deceased vis-a-vis income of the deceased is concerned. While discussing the issue Nos. 5 and 6, the learned Tribunal below arrived at a finding that the age of the deceased as per the voter's identity card was 39 years as on 1. 1. 1995 and as the accident took place on 6. 9. 1996, the deceased was aged 40 plus and, as such, applying multiplier 15 as the appropriate multiplier to determine the compensation.

(3.) IN this regard, the learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the age of the deceased as per post-mortem report is 30 years and that should have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. In this connection, it is evident from the recital of the claim petition that the age of the deceased was recorded as 38 years in the application. The argument advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants to accept the age as recorded in the post-mortem report cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the age as recorded in the voter's identity card which was produced by the claimants during the proceeding before the learned Tribunal below in support of the age of the deceased is prepared in exercise of specific provision as provided under the Representation of the People Act and rules framed thereunder. Moreover, the age and other particulars as recorded in the voter's identity card is recorded by the authority in terms of the provision as prescribed in the rules and, as such, it has more evidentiary value than the age which is recorded in the post-mortem report. The age as recorded in the post-mortem report is accepted only when there is no other evidence, but when in this case the age as reflected in the voter's identity card was placed before the Tribunal by the appellants for necessary consideration and when the Tribunal relied the age of the deceased as recorded in the voter's identity card, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal while deciding the age of the deceased. As such, the findings as to age of the deceased being 40 plus as arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed.