The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that an Aadhaar card alone cannot be considered sufficient proof of age while deciding compensation in motor accident claims. The court observed that Aadhaar primarily serves as an identity document and cannot automatically establish a person’s date of birth or age for legal purposes. It stressed that courts and tribunals should rely on more reliable records, such as birth certificates, school documents or medical evidence, when determining age-related compensation.

The ruling was delivered while hearing three connected motor accident appeals involving compensation claims arising from road accidents. In one case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had relied solely on the Aadhaar card of injured claimant Ranjit Bhunjia to determine his age as 68 years. Based on that assessment, the tribunal applied a lower multiplier while calculating the loss of future income, which resulted in a reduced compensation amount for the claimant.

The High Court noted that other records, including the claimant’s petition, medical documents and disability certificate, indicated that his age was between 60 and 65 years. Referring to a 2024 Supreme Court judgment, the court held that using Aadhaar as the only basis for determining age was inappropriate. After reassessing the evidence, the High Court increased the compensation awarded to Ranjit Bhunjia from Rs 96,400 to Rs 3.90 lakh. The court also enhanced compensation payable to the families of two deceased victims involved in the connected appeals.

Also Read: Chhattisgarh: 4 Inmates Escape Bilaspur Facility After Fatal Altercation with Watchman

The court further clarified the scope of an insurance company’s liability in motor accident cases. It ruled that an insurer’s responsibility begins only from the date and time mentioned in the insurance policy and not simply from the moment the premium payment is received. In the case under consideration, although the insurance premium had been credited before the accident, the policy became active only after the incident had already occurred, meaning the insurer was not liable for the accident during the intervening period.

The High Court also rejected a claim of contributory negligence based only on the fact that three people were travelling on a motorcycle at the time of the accident. The court held that a violation of traffic rules by itself cannot establish contributory negligence unless it is proven that the violation directly contributed to causing the accident. The judgment highlights the importance of proper evidence and legal standards while deciding compensation matters in motor accident cases.

Also Read: Chhattisgarh Government Releases Funds For Women Under Mahtari Vandan Yojana