The Supreme Court noted that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal after the High Court reduced the compensation in a Motor vehicle accident case.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India, 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."

Brief Facts-

In the present case, an appeal was filed by the wife and sons of the deceased who died in a motorcycle accident. The deceased succumbed to his injuries after he met with an accident. An FIR was registered, and the family filed a Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded them Rs.19.35L with interest. However, on appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.9.22L using minimum wage rates for calculation and applying a multiplier based on the deceased's Aadhar-recorded age of 47 years. The Appellants, disputing the reduced compensation, approached the Court. The case was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement, but no resolution was reached.

The Court mentioned the decision in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P. where according to the Court it was held, “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.”

The Court further mentioned the decision in Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India where according to the Court Gujarat High Court 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 as per the Court was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeals.

Cause Title: Saroj v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 816)