Tribunal may determine the deceased’s age from available evidence without requiring service records.

Late Anu Ullah Sk died in a motor vehicle accident on 15 April 2015 when Truck No. AS-01/G-5931 allegedly struck his motorcycle from behind while he was proceeding towards Lakhipur.

His widow and son instituted a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, registered as MAC Case No. 1054/2015.

The driver and owner proceeded ex parte, while National Insurance Company Limited contested the claim but led no evidence.

The Tribunal awarded ₹24,49,500 with interest at 7% per annum from 21 February 2017 and applied a multiplier of 13 after treating the deceased as being in the 46–50 age group.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally contending that the deceased’s age should have been determined from his service records and that the documents relied upon by the Tribunal were inconsistent with the ages stated in the next-of-kin certificate.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s age within the 46–50 age group, and consequently in applying the multiplier of 13, on the basis of the documentary and medical evidence available before it

Whether the Tribunal was required to direct the claimants to produce the deceased’s service records as the best evidence of his age

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: a claim under Section 166 is adjudicated on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, while an appeal under Section 173 permits appellate scrutiny of the Tribunal’s award.

The Court held that although a Claims Tribunal may require production of specific evidence where available, it is not obliged to insist upon such evidence if the materials already on record reasonably establish the relevant fact on a balance of probabilities.

The Court also considered The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1609, cited by the insurer concerning the evidentiary determination of age.

A next-of-kin certificate primarily establishes the relationship between the claimants and the deceased and is not conclusive proof of the ages stated therein.

The Tribunal relied on the deceased’s voter identity card, PAN card, school certificate, and post-mortem report, which consistently indicated or supported a date of birth of 1 January 1970 or an age of approximately 48 years.

These documents supported the finding that the deceased fell within the 46–50 age bracket, justifying the application of multiplier 13.

The insurer produced no counter-evidence, including no service record or other official document establishing a different age.

Although the insurer relied on the ages of the widow and son recorded in the next-of-kin certificate to argue that the deceased must have been older, the Court held that the certificate was issued principally to establish familial relationship and could not conclusively determine the ages of the persons mentioned in it.

Consequently, the Tribunal’s conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence on a preponderance of probabilities, and there was no error warranting appellate interference.

It held that the Tribunal properly assessed the deceased’s age as falling within the 46–50 age group and correctly applied multiplier 13; production of service records was not indispensable in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the award of ₹24,49,500 with interest at 7% per annum was left undisturbed.

The records of MAC Case No. 1054/2015 were directed to be returned to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of the judgment.