Contemporaneous identity documents prevail over approximate medical records for determining age in motor accident compensation claims.

On April 6, 2014, the claimant, Mahender Yadav, was hit from behind by a truck (offending vehicle) while riding a bicycle to work, resulting in permanent physical disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 8,00,000 with 9% interest, determining the claimant’s age as 45 years, functional disability at 30%, and applying a multiplier of 14.

Both the claimant (seeking enhancement) and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (seeking reduction) filed cross-appeals.

The claimant argued for higher functional disability (57%) based on his vocation as a bicycle delivery man, while the Corporation contested his age, citing PAN and Aadhaar records indicating he was 54 at the time of the accident.

The court applied the multiplier and future prospects framework established in Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

Regarding the determination of age, the court relied on Saroj Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., which held that while Aadhaar is primarily proof of identity, contemporaneous documents like school certificates or identity cards carry higher evidentiary value than medical entries based on oral statements.

For functional disability, the court applied the principles from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, which mandate that the Tribunal assess how physical impairment specifically impacts the claimant’s ability to perform their specific vocation.

The Court rejected the MACT's reliance on medical records for age determination, noting that the MLC and disability certificates recorded age based on oral statements made at the time of admission.

Instead, the Court prioritized the PAN and Aadhaar cards available during the proceedings, which consistently showed a 1960 birth year, placing the claimant at 54 years old; consequently, the multiplier was reduced to 11 and future prospects to 10%.

Regarding functional disability, the Court found that since the claimant’s livelihood depended on delivering goods by bicycle, a 57% permanent disability in the left lower limb (involving a stiff knee and ankle) effectively hindered his vocation to the same extent as his physical impairment.

The Court also found the non-pecuniary awards insufficient, consolidating "mental shock" into "pain and suffering" and significantly increasing the amounts for loss of amenities and suffering to reflect the long-term impact on the claimant's quality of life.

The Court held that: (i) the claimant’s age was 54 years based on identity documents; (ii) the functional disability is 57% given the claimant's specific vocation; and (iii) non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities are enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively.

The Court directed the deposit of the enhanced amount within four weeks, with a structured disbursal involving immediate release of Rs. 2,00,000 and the remainder through staggered Fixed Deposit Receipts.