-
by Admin
24 February 2026 4:19 AM
“Statutory PAN Card Must Prevail Over Welfare Ration Card” — In a powerful and socially sensitive judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a ration card cannot be treated as proof of age while determining compensation in motor accident cases, holding instead that a PAN card — issued under a central fiscal statute — carries superior evidentiary value.
Justice Harkesh Manuja enhanced the compensation awarded to the widow and four minor children of the deceased from ₹17.75 lakh to ₹26.16 lakh, while dismissing the Insurance Company’s plea for reduction.
The judgment stands out not only for recalculating compensation but for laying down clear principles on evidentiary hierarchy, income determination, personal expense deductions, and interest rates.
“Self-Serving Testimony Cannot Dislodge an Unimpeached Eye-Witness” — Contributory Negligence Plea Rejected
The Insurance Company attempted to argue that the accident was a case of contributory negligence, alleging that the deceased passenger had protruded his arm outside the bus window and that a truck from behind caused the impact.
The Court was unconvinced.
An eye-witness (PW-2) had clearly deposed that the bus was being driven at high speed and struck another vehicle while overtaking near Karnal. The FIR was promptly lodged naming the driver. Despite lengthy cross-examination, his testimony remained intact.
In contrast, the driver’s version remained unsupported. No conductor or passenger was examined. No corroborative evidence was produced.
Justice Manuja observed that the driver’s statement was a “self-serving testimony” that did not inspire confidence.
The Court further noted that even if a passenger’s arm momentarily protrudes outside a window, amputation cannot occur unless accompanied by a violent collision — something attributable to negligent driving.
The plea of 50:50 negligence was therefore rejected outright.
“Gross Income Is Not the Correct Basis” — Tribunal’s Error Corrected
The Tribunal had assessed monthly income at ₹15,000 by relying on the gross total income mentioned in the deceased’s Income Tax Returns.
The High Court corrected this approach, holding that what must be considered is the “Total Income” after statutory deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act.
The Court clarified:
“What is to be taken into consideration is the Total Income after applying necessary tax deductions.”
Relying on the last return (Ex.P-3), the Court determined annual income at ₹1,56,050 — translating to ₹13,004 per month — thereby recalibrating the entire compensation framework.
“Ration Card Is Merely a Welfare Document” — PAN Card Declared Best Proof of Age
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling concerns the determination of age.
The Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s age as 48 years based on a ration card. The claimants contended that the deceased was 40 years old as per his PAN card.
The High Court firmly rejected reliance on the ration card.
Referring to the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, the Court observed that a ration card is issued exclusively for distribution of essential commodities and “shall not be used as a document of identity or proof of residence.”
The Court went further, holding that such a welfare document cannot be treated as proof of date of birth.
On the other hand, a PAN card:
“Is a statutory document issued under Section 139-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after due verification.”
The Court noted that the date of birth recorded in a PAN card qualifies as a relevant public record under Section 29 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It also referred to the Passport (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which recognise PAN as valid proof of date of birth.
“This Court deems it fit to consider the PAN card as the best evidence.”
With the date of birth established as 17 December 1969 and death occurring on 1 July 2010, the deceased was held to be 40 years old — attracting multiplier 15 under Sarla Verma, instead of multiplier 13 applied by the Tribunal.
This single correction significantly enhanced the compensation.
“Deduction Is Not an Inflexible Rule” — Reduced to 1/5th in Light of Social Realities
The deceased left behind a widow, two minor daughters, and two minor sons.
While Sarla Verma suggests a deduction of one-fourth where dependents are four to six, the Court emphasised that this is only a guideline and not a rigid formula.
Justice Manuja adopted a sociological lens, observing:
“A father shoulders continuing responsibility not merely towards sustenance, but towards upbringing, education, marriage and other essential social obligations.”
Recognising the financial responsibilities towards two minor daughters, the Court reduced deduction towards personal expenses from 1/4th to 1/5th.
The ruling underscores that compensation jurisprudence must remain responsive to ground realities rather than mechanically applying mathematical formulas.
“Future Prospects Cannot Be Denied to the Self-Employed”
The deceased was 40 years old and self-employed in the business of utensils.
Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court granted 25% addition towards future prospects.
The Tribunal had also failed to properly award compensation under conventional heads.
Correcting this omission, the Court awarded:
Funeral expenses at ₹18,000
Loss of estate at ₹18,000
Consortium at ₹48,000 each to five claimants — totalling ₹2,40,000
The recognition of consortium to all dependents reflects compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satinder Kaur.
“7.5% Interest Is Not Just and Equitable” — Enhanced to 9%
The Court also found the Tribunal’s award of 7.5% interest inadequate.
Relying on Supe Dei and Puttamma, the rate of interest was enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.
Compensation Enhanced by ₹8.41 Lakh
After recalculation, the total compensation was determined at ₹26,16,750.
The enhanced amount of ₹8,41,750 over the Tribunal’s award was directed to be paid with 9% interest.
The claimants’ appeal was allowed in part. The Insurance Company’s appeal was dismissed.
This decision reshapes how courts may approach evidentiary evaluation in compensation matters.
It firmly establishes that:
“Welfare documents cannot override statutory fiscal records.”
It corrects the practice of using gross income instead of taxable income for compensation calculation.
It reiterates that deduction towards personal expenses is flexible and fact-dependent.
It strengthens financial justice for widows and minor children in fatal accident cases.
Above all, the judgment reflects a careful blend of statutory interpretation, evidentiary reasoning, and social sensitivity — ensuring that compensation law remains humane as well as legally sound.
Date of Decision: 18 February 2026
