Saroj vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co

2024 INSC 816 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.23939-23940 of 2023)

SAROJ & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.…RESPONDENTS

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.10.24 13:35:14 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter “claimant-appellants”

1| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 registration No.HR-12X-2820, along with one Rohit. Both were found lying

injured on the side of the road. The 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, Rohtak2. 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

2 Hereinafter “MACT”

2| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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/-.

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

3| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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.

4| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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., 1 st

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.

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)

3 Hereafter “JJ Act”

5| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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 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

4 (2019) 1 SCC 1

6| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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 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

5 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919 6 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740 7 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553

7| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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 Kerala12.

9.6 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India13, 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

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 13 Abbreviated as ‘UIDAI’ 14 Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022

8| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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.

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.

9| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 (Sanjeev Yadav) Director Tel: 011-23478609 Email: dirl.auth-hq@uidai.net.in

…”

(Emphasis supplied)

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.

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.

10| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023

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 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 :-

17

(2017) 16 SCC 680

11| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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/-) @ 25% @ 25% (2,250/-) + + Rs.9,000/- (1,471/-) + Rs.9,000/- = Rs.11,700/- Rs.5,886/- = Rs.11,250/- p.m. p.m. Rs.7,357/- p.m. Personal Expenses 11,700-3900 7,357 – 2,452 11250-3,750 (Deduction of 1/3 ) = Rs.7,800/- p.m. = Rs.4,906/- Rs.7,500/-p.m. Rs.93,600/- p.a. = Rs.90,000/- p.a

Multiplier 14 13 14

Loss of Rs.93,600 x 14 = Rs.58,872 x 13 Rs.90,000 x 14 = dependency Rs.13,10,400/- = Rs.12,60,000/- Rs.7,65,336/- 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.48,400 /- Rs.1,20,000/- (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/- Total compensation Rs.20,35,400/- + Rs.9,22,336/- + Rs.14,41,500/- + 8% 7.5% interest 6% interest interest from date of filing of claim petition

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

12| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023 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.

…………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

………………………………J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

Dated : 24th October, 2024;

Place : New Delhi.

13| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023