SAROJ & ORS. versus IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 939, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 939 : 2024 INSC 816
Saroj & Ors. 
v. 
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12077-12078 of 2024)
24 October 2024
[Sanjay Karol* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between 
the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar 
Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether 
the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the 
MACT was justified and in accordance with law.
Headnotes†
Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to 
determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate:
Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – 
Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification Authority of India, 
to the effect that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish 
identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth – Judicial notice has 
been taken of the circular. [Paras 9.6-9.8]
Motor accident – Compensation – Claim of – Determination of 
age of the victim – Death of victim in a motorcycle accident  – 
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- with an 
interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition – 
However, the High Court reduced the compensation to 
Rs.9,22,336, on basis of the minimum wage rate and multiplier 
of 13 on basis of the victim’s age as 47 years at the time of 
his death as per his aadhar card – Challenge to, contending 
that the multiplier applicable would be
14 as his age was  
45 years as per his school leaving certificate:
Held: High Court erred in reducing the compensation – Court 
sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the court 
below – It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by 
perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise 
* Author
940
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
it beyond redemption – Question before the High Court was not 
as to which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of 
the deceased was ‘better’ – Since nothing on record to establish 
that the rates notified by the District Commissioner, would not 
apply to the deceased, no reason to interfere with the finding of 
the tribunal – Furthermore, School Leaving Certificate has been 
accorded statutory recognition under sub-section (2) of s.94 of 
the 2015 Act – Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of 
its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated that an Aadhar Card, while 
can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of 
birth – No error in the MACT’s determination of age based on the 
School Leaving Certificate – As regards, the interest awarded, no 
reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate 
of interest from 7.5% to 6% – Compensation received by way 
of claims filed before MACT is either born out of injury or death 
of the claimant or family member of the claimants and so, the 
amount awarded must do justice to them – It necessarily has to 
be just and reasonable – Thus, fit to enhance the rate of interest 
to 8% – Notional income to be taken as Rs.9000/- as found by the 
tribunal; and the multiplier to be applied is 14 – Just compensation  
rounded off to Rs.15 lakhs with 8% interest from the date of filing 
of the claim petition – Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of 
Children) Act, 2015. [Paras 9, 9.1-9.3, 9.6-9.8, 10-12, 14]
Case Law Cited
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2019) 1 
SCC 1; Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine 
MP 1919; Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine 
MP 2740; Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2021 
SCC OnLine P&H 4553; Noor Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 
Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514; Muskan v. State of Punjab, 
2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649; Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P., 
2019 SCC OnLine All 7085; Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P., 2024 
SCC OnLine HP 2965; Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC 
OnLine Ker 5814; State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification 
Authority of India and Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 
2022; Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union of India & Anr., Order 
dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/Civil Special Application 
No. 16484 of 2022; Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine 
Del 5058; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 
SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
941
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
List of Acts
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
List of Keywords
Aadhar Card; Suitability of Aadhar Card as proof of age; School 
leaving certificate; Proof of date of birth; Date of birth; Unique 
Identification Authority of India; Circular No.08 of 2023; Establish 
identity; Judicial notice; Motor accident; Compensation; Interest; 
Minimum wage rate; Multiplier of 13; Multiplier of 14; Appellate 
proceedings; Notional income; Just and reasonable; Enhance 
rate of interest.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12077-12078 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2023 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 8504 and 6836 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Ms. Shefali Choudhary, Ms. Namita Choudhary, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Suyash Vyas, Gopal Singh, Anil Hooda, Shafik Ahmed, Ajay Sharma, 
Sunny, Satendra Singh Baghel, S. Srinivasa Chary, Manoj Kumar, 
Ms. Parul Priya, Ms. Anupama Singh, Varun Mishra, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Sanjay Karol J.
Leave Granted.
2.	
These appeals are at the instance of the wife and sons1 of the 
deceased Silak Ram, who was on 4th August, 2015, travelling on 
a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12X-2820, along with one 
Rohit. Both were found lying injured on the side of the road. The 
1	
Hereinafter
“claimant-appellants”
942
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
former had succumbed to his injuries and the latter was taken for 
treatment to Medical College, Rohtak. 
3.	
One Krishan who had discovered the deceased and the injured 
person on the road, reported the matter to the police and, during 
the investigation of such incident, the statement of the injured Rohit 
revealed the particulars of the offending vehicles. In connection 
thereto, F.I.R.No.481/2015 dated 4th August, 2015 under Sections 
279/337, 304A was registered at Police Station, Sampla. 
4.	
The claim petition, bearing No.25 of 2015 was instituted by the family 
members of the deceased on 16th December, 2015 before the Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak.2 Vide Award dated 26th April, 2017 
an amount of Rs.19,35,400/- was passed with an interest @7.5% 
from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent-insurance 
company was directed to deposit the money into the bank accounts 
of the claimant-appellants. However, for claimant Nos.2 and 3, who 
were minors at the relevant time, their share of Rs.6 lakhs each was 
directed to be placed in fixed deposit till the age of majority or for a 
period of five years, whichever is later. 
5.	
On appeal to the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th 
March, 2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of 2017 (O&M) and 6836 
of 2017 (O&M) the amount awarded by the MACT was reduced 
to Rs.9,22,336/- noting that minimum wage rates issued by the 
Government are uniformly
applicable throughout the State and, 
therefore, constitute a better measure for calculating the notional 
income of a deceased person, as opposed to special DC rates notified 
by the Deputy Commissioner of a District, and, therefore, would only 
be applicable to that particular district. Further, it was observed that 
with respect to the age at the time of death, the Aadhar Card of the 
deceased records his date of birth to be 1st January 1969; thus, the 
age comes to 47 years. Hence, the multiplier applicable would be 13. 
6.	
The claimant-appellants, aggrieved by the reduction, have approached 
this Court. Before us, it was contended that the multiplier applicable 
would be 14 since, in the School Leave Certificate the date of birth 
of the deceased is shown as 7th October, 1970. His age, then at the 
time of the accident was 45 years. They were further aggrieved by 
the calculation of monthly income to be Rs.5,886/-. 
2	
Hereinafter “MACT”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
943
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
7.	
Notice was issued on 17th October, 2023. The matter was then sent 
to Lok Adalat by way of an order dated 23rd July 2024. A subsequent 
order dated 2nd August 2024 records that the matter could not be 
settled. 
8.	
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused 
the record. The questions arising for consideration are - (a) in case of 
conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, as in this case 
between the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which 
of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and (b) whether in the facts 
of the case, the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded 
by the learned MACT, was justified and in accordance with law?
9.	
This Court is of the view that the High Court erred in undertaking 
the reduction as it has. The reasons therefor are recorded in the 
following paragraphs.
9.1	 The general rule insofar as appellate proceedings are concerned 
is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for 
that of the Court below. It is only to see that the decision arrived 
at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice 
which may compromise it beyond redemption. 
9.2	 It is also well settled that an order is not to be interfered with 
simply because another view is possible, which, in the impugned 
order the High Court seems to have done. 
9.3	 The question before the High Court was
not as to which yardstick 
to use to determine the notional income of the deceased was 
‘better’. Since there is nothing on record to establish that the 
rates notified by the District Commissioner, Rohtak, would not 
apply to the deceased, we find no reason to interfere with the 
finding of the Tribunal. Further, the testimonies of PWs 2, 5 and 
6 show that he is an agriculturist who owned his own tractor 
and a JCB machine. 
9.4	 The second aspect is the age of the deceased. The High 
Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card of 
the deceased, i.e., 1st January, 1969. However, as submitted by 
the claimant-appellants, the School Leaving Certificate records 
the date of birth of the deceased to be 7th October, 1970. This 
will affect the multiplier to be applied. Let us now consider this 
question.
944
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
It has to be noted at the outset that a School Leaving Certificate 
has been accorded statutory recognition. Sub-section (2) of 
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Act, 20153 reads thus:
“(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has 
reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether 
the person brought before it is a child or not, the 
Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall 
undertake the process of age determination, by 
seeking evidence by obtaining — 
(i)	
the date of birth certificate from the school, or 
the matriculation or equivalent certificate from 
the concerned examination Board, if available; 
and in the absence thereof; 
(ii)	
the birth certificate given by a corporation or a 
municipal authority or a panchayat; 
(iii)	 and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, 
age shall be determined by an ossification test 
or any other latest medical age determination 
test conducted on the orders of the Committee 
or the Board…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Whether the Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person’s age, has 
come up for consideration before some High Courts, albeit in the 
context of different statutes. We shall refer to a few instances but, 
prior to doing so, it is also important to take note of the purpose 
behind introduction of the Aadhar Scheme. In the Constitution 
Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (5-J.)4 
Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. wrote as
hereinbelow extracted, encapsulating 
the object and purpose of Aadhar:-
“24. Before adverting to the discussion on various 
issues that have been raised in these petitions, it 
would be apposite to first understand the structure of 
3	
Hereafter “JJ Act”
4	
[2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2019) 1 SCC 1
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
945
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
the Aadhaar Act and how it operates, having regard 
to various provisions contained therein. UIDAI was 
established in the year 2009 by an administrative 
order i.e. by resolution of the Govt. of India, Planning 
Commission, vide notification dated January 28, 2009. 
The object of the establishment of the said Authority 
was primarily to lay down policies to implement the 
Unique Identification Scheme (for short the ‘UIS’) of 
the Government, by which residents of India were 
to be provided unique identity number. The aim was 
to serve this as proof of identity, which is unique in 
nature, as each individual will have only one identity 
with no chance of duplication. Another objective was 
that this number could be used for identification of 
beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services 
and other purposes. This was the primary reason, viz. 
to ensure correct identification of targeted beneficiaries 
for delivery of various subsidies, benefits, services, 
grants, wages and other social benefits schemes which 
are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India ...
Summing up the Scheme: 
62. The whole architecture of Aadhaar is devised to 
give unique identity to the citizens of this country. 
No doubt, a person can have various documents 
on the basis of which that individual can establish 
her identity. It may be in the form of a passport, 
Permanent Account Number (PAN) card, ration
card 
and so on. For the purpose of enrolment itself number 
of documents are prescribed which an individual can 
produce on the basis of which Aadhaar card can be 
issued. Thus, such documents, in a way, are also 
proof of identity. However, there is a fundamental 
difference between the Aadhaar card as a means of 
identity and other documents through which identity 
can be established. Enrolment for Aadhaar card also 
requires giving of demographic information as well 
as biometric information which is in the form of iris 
and fingerprints. This process eliminates any chance 
of duplication. ….. It is for this reason the Aadhaar
946
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
card is known as Unique Identification (UID). Such 
an identity is unparalleled.” 
(Emphasis supplied)
9.5	 Turning back to the question of whether Aadhar Card can serve 
as a proof of age, a perusal of some High Court judgments 
reveals that this question has been considered on quite a few 
occasions in the context of the JJ Act. Illustratively, in Manoj 
Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P.5 a learned Single Judge of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to 
establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned 
in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof 
in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations have 
been made in Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P.6 holding that if 
the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under 
challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy. 
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition 
of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State 
of Punjab & Ors.7 held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof 
of age”. Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor 
Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,8 Muskan v. State of 
Punjab9 as well as several other orders/judgments, in various 
contexts. 
Views aligning with the one referred to above have been taken 
by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati Kumari 
v. State of U.P.;10 the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kumit 
Kumar v. State of
H.P.11 and the High Court of Kerala in Sofikul 
Islam v. State of Kerala.12 
5	
2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919
6	
2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740
7	
2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553
8	
2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514
9	
2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649
10	
2019 SCC OnLine All 7085
11	
2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965
12	
2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
947
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
9.6	 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India,13 by 
way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to 
an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics 
and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an 
Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not 
per se proof of date of birth. This office memorandum dated 
20th December, 2018 was taken note of by a learned Division 
Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. 
Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors.14 in its order 
dated 28th July, 2023. The Circular is extracted hereinbelow for 
ready reference:-
F.No.HQ-13065/1/2022-AUTH-II HQ/8075 
Unique Identification Authority of India 
(Authentication and Verification Division)
UIDAI Headquarter 
Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir 
Gole Market, New Delhi-110 001 
Dated 22.12.2023
Circular No.08 of 2023
Subject: Accepting Aadhar as a proof of Date of Birth 
(DoB) – regarding.
It has been observed that AUAs/KUAs are considering 
and accepting Aadhar card / e-Aadhaar as one of the 
acceptable documents for proof of Date of Birth (DoB).
2. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar 
is a unique 12 digit ID issued to a resident after he/
she undergoes the enrolment process by submitting 
his/her demographic and biometric information. Once 
a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be 
used
to authenticate the resident through various 
modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 and 
Regulations framed there under.
13	
Abbreviated as ‘UIDAI’
14	
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022
948
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records 
DoB as claimed by the resident, on the basis of 
the documents submitted by them, as specified 
under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar 
enrolment, provided on the UIDAI website (https://
uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023 Aadhar 
List of documents English.pdf). Further, it is to be 
noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar 
(Enrolment and UPDATE) Regulations, 2016, mention 
that verification of the enrolment and update data shall 
be performed as provided in Schedule III.
4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office 
Memorandum dated 2-0.12.2018 issued by MeitY 
through UIDAI, where it has been stated that “An 
Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity 
of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, 
per se its not a proof of date of birth” (copy enclosed).
5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been 
reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High 
Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is 
given by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the 
case of State of Maharashtra V/S Unique Identification 
Authority of India And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy 
enclosed).
6. In view of the above, it is required that use of 
Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from 
the list of acceptable documents.
7. This issues with the approval of the Competent 
Authority.
Encl : As above.
(Sanjeev Yadav)
Director 
Tel: 011-23478609 
Email: dirl.auth-hq@uidai.net.in
…”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
949
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
9.7	 Judicial notice has also been taken of the circular above. 
Recently, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in 
Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India & Anr.15 in 
view thereof directed the release of the petitioner’s pension in 
accordance with the date as mentioned in the School Leaving 
Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as 
mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the 
purpose of such consideration. 
9.8	 In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi16 a learned Division Bench of the 
Delhi High Court in a case where the petitioner-mother sought 
a writ of habeas corpus for her daughter, recorded a statement 
made for and on behalf of UIDAI that “Aadhar Card may not 
be used as proof of date of birth.”
9.9	 Here, we may clarify that we have not expressed any view on 
the merits of these cases before their respective High Courts, 
and reference has only been made to them for the limited 
purpose of examining the suitability of the Aadhar Card as 
proof of age.
10.	 That being the position, as it stands with respect to the determination 
of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the 
claimant-appellants, based on the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, 
we find no error in the learned MACT’s determination of age based 
on the School Leaving Certificate. 
11.	 On another aspect, i.e., the interest awarded, we find there to be 
no
reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate 
of interest from 7.5% to 6%. The High Courts cannot lose sight of 
the fact that compensation received by way of claims filed before 
MACT is either born out of injury or death of the claimant or family 
member of the claimants and so, the amount awarded must do justice 
to them. It necessarily has to be just and reasonable. In that view 
of the matter, we find it fit to enhance the rate of interest to 8% to 
be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. 
12.	 In view of the above discussion, we direct that the notional income 
to be taken shall be Rs.9000/- as found by the Tribunal; given that 
15	
Order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/ Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022
16	
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5058. Judgment dated 24th July, 2024.
950
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the date of birth is, apropos the above discussion, to be taken as 7th 
October 1970 and consequently, the multiplier to be applied is 14. 
13.	 Hence, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants in terms 
of the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay 
Sethi17 is recalculated in tabulated form as under :-
Heads
MACT
HC
Final Compensation 
Payable
Monthly 
Income
Rs.9,000/- (pg.38)
Rs.5,886/-
Rs.9,000/-
Annual 
income 
Rs.1,08,000/-
Rs.70,632/-
Rs.1,08,000/-
Future 
prospects 
@ 30% (2,700/-) 
+ Rs.9,000/- 
= Rs.11,700/- 
p.m.
@ 25% (1,471/-) 
+ Rs.5,886/- 
Rs.7,357/- p.m.
@ 25% (2,250/-) + 
Rs.9,000/- 
= Rs.11,250/- p.m.
Personal 
Expenses  
(Deduction of 
1/3 )
11,700-3900 
= Rs.7,800/- p.m. 
Rs.93,600/- p.a.
7,357 – 2,452 
= Rs.4,906/-
11250-3,750 
Rs.7,500/-p.m. 
= Rs.90,000/- p.a
Multiplier 
14
13
14
Loss of 
dependency 
Rs.93,600 x 14 = 
Rs.13,10,400/-
Rs.58,872 x 
13 =  
Rs.7,65,336/-
Rs.90,000 x 14 = 
Rs.12,60,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/-
Rs.15,000/-
Rs.18,150/-  
(10% increase after 
3 yrs + 3 yrs)
Funeral 
expenses
Rs.25,000/-
Rs.15,000/-
Rs.18,150/-  
(10% increase after 
3 yrs + 3 yrs)
Loss of 
Consortium
Rs.6,00,000/-
Rs.40,000 x 3 = 
Rs.1,20,000/-
Rs.48,400 /- 
(10% increase after 
3 yrs + 3 yrs) x 3 = 
Rs. 1,45,200/-
Total 
compensation 
Rs.20,35,400/- + 
7.5% interest
Rs.9,22,336/- + 
6% interest
Rs.14,41,500/- + 
8% interest from 
date of filing of 
claim petition
17
[2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
951
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.
14.	 The appeals are allowed, the total amount, i.e., Rs.14,41,500, in the 
interest of just compensation is rounded off to Rs.15,00,000/- with 
8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition to be released 
to the rightful claimants in the manner directed by the Tribunal. 
Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of. No order as to cost.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain