The Calcutta High Court has allowed an appeal filed by the family of a deceased accident victim, holding that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal incorrectly assessed the victim's age and compensation. The court directed National Insurance Company Limited to pay an additional ₹13.80 lakh along with interest to the claimants.
Justice Aniruddha Roy delivered the judgment on May 21, 2026, while hearing an appeal against a tribunal order passed in December 2019.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a road accident on October 18, 2013, in which Durga Prasad Sharma alias Bhattarai lost his life. His widow and other legal heirs approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation.
The tribunal accepted that the accident had occurred and awarded compensation of ₹6,00,540. However, while calculating the amount, it treated the deceased as being 60 years old and applied a multiplier of five. The tribunal also declined to grant future prospects and interest, noting that the family was receiving pension benefits.
Aggrieved by the award, the deceased's family challenged the decision before the High Court.
The High Court closely examined the evidence relating to the age of the deceased. The tribunal had relied on the fact that the deceased was receiving pension and presumed that he must have attained the age of superannuation.
Justice Roy found that there was no conclusive evidence proving that the deceased had retired at the age of 60. The court noted that the insurance company had not produced any material to establish the actual age of retirement.
Referring to the post-mortem report, the bench observed that it recorded the deceased's age as 50 years and was based on scientific assessment.
“The P.M. report should be taken as a conclusive and decisive evidence,” the court observed, adding that there was no reliable material contradicting the expert opinion contained in the report.
The court held that the tribunal's conclusion regarding the deceased's age was based on presumption and could not be sustained.
The High Court also disagreed with the tribunal's refusal to grant future prospects. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi, the court said family pension could not be a reason to deny future prospects while calculating compensation.
“The finding of the Tribunal on this score for future compensation/future prospect stands set aside and quashed,” the bench stated.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the tribunal's award and held that the deceased should be treated as 50 years old for compensation purposes. Consequently, the multiplier was revised from five to thirteen.
The court directed the insurance company to recalculate compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, including future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium.
After adjusting the amount already paid, the court held that an additional sum of ₹13,80,404 was payable to the claimants. The insurer was also directed to pay interest at six per cent per annum from March 14, 2016, until payment.
The court ordered the entire amount along with interest to be paid within six weeks from communication of the judgment and allowed the appeal without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tara Sharma & Ors. vs National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FMA 41 of 2024
Judge: Justice Aniruddha Roy
Decision Date: May 21, 2026
