Aadhaar Card Age Not Conclusive: AP High Court Relies On Age Mentioned In Post-Mortem Report To Enhance Accident Compensation

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that age recorded in an Aadhaar card cannot be accepted as conclusive proof and relied on the age mentioned in the post-mortem report of an accident victim to calculate the accident compensation to be granted to his kin. 

In doing so the court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 7.33 Lakh to Rs.11.27 Lakh, noting that the age mentioned in Aadhaar card which was 48 years was incorrect as the actual age of the deceased as per post mortem report was 45 years on which mutiplier of '14' should be applied to compute compensation

The post-mortem report and other relevant records indicated that the deceased was 45 years old, prompting the Court to reject the age of 48 relied upon by the Tribunal.

In reassessing the compensation, the Court also increased the deceased's monthly income from ₹4,500 to ₹6,500, noting that workers in the unorganised sector may not have documentary evidence to establish their earnings.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela partly allowed the appeal filed by the deceased's family seeking enhancement of compensation and dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging the award.

The Court observed:

“While coming to the compensation aspect, learned counsel for the claimants pointed out that the age of the deceased is 45 years as per the exhibits marked and the Tribunal wrongly taken note of the age mentioned in the Aadhaar card as 48 years. It is an established principle of law that the age mentioned in the Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the said documents which are marked. The age derived from the Postmortem certificate and other relevant reports is 45 years, and the Tribunal ought to have taken 45 as correct age and should have applied '14' as multiplier in computing compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently contended that, in the absence of the claimants filing any other proof, the Tribunal has rightly considered the age mentioned in the Aadhaar card as conclusive. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said contention since it is settled law that the date of birth in the Aadhaar card is not conclusive and cannot be taken into consideration. This Court is of the opinion that the age of the deceased should be taken as 45 years and not 48 years.”

The case arose from a fatal motor accident in which the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the Chittoor-Vellore Road near Gudipala Cross Road when a Tavera car, driven rashly and negligently, lost control and hit his vehicle. He succumbed to his injuries shortly thereafter. A criminal case was registered against the driver, followed by the filing of a charge sheet. The car was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited.

Following the accident, the deceased's wife and two children sought compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal held the driver and the insurance company jointly and severally liable and awarded ₹7,33,400. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants appealed for enhancement, while the insurance company filed a separate appeal challenging the award.

Before the High Court, the claimants argued that the Tribunal had wrongly relied on the deceased's Aadhaar card, which recorded his age as 48, despite the post-mortem certificate and other records indicating that he was 45. They submitted that his age should be correctly considered while applying the multiplier for calculating compensation.

The claimants also submitted that the deceased worked as a painter and engaged in agricultural operations, earning ₹15,000 per month from painting and ₹25,000 from agricultural activities, taking his total monthly income to ₹40,000.

In response, the insurance company contended that the Tribunal had rightly relied on the Aadhaar card in the absence of other proof of age. It also argued that the ₹1 lakh awarded towards consortium should be reduced to ₹40,000 in accordance with the applicable legal position.

Accepting the claimants' contention on age, the Court held that the deceased's age should be taken as 45 years and a multiplier of 14 applied while calculating compensation.

On the question of income, the Bench noted that the claimants had not produced reliable documentary evidence to substantiate their assertion that the deceased earned ₹40,000 per month. The Tribunal had therefore assessed his monthly income at ₹4,500.

However, the Court observed that the absence of documentary evidence could not justify an unduly low income assessment, particularly for a person working in the unorganised sector. Considering the nature of the deceased's work and prevailing economic conditions, it fixed his monthly income at ₹6,500, noting that the Tribunal had not adequately explained how it arrived at ₹4,500.

Based on this revised assessment, the Court added 30% towards future prospects, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14 to calculate the loss of dependency at ₹9,46,400.

It further calculated consortium at ₹1,45,200 after periodic enhancement, and funeral expenses and loss of estate at a combined ₹36,300, taking the total compensation to ₹11,27,900.

As a result, the Bench directed the driver and the insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest at 7.5% per annum, before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment, after deducting any amount already deposited. The claimants may withdraw the amount according to their apportioned shares.

The Court accordingly partly allowed the claimants' appeal and dismissed the insurance company's appeal.  

Counsel for the Claimants: Mr. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao

Counsel for the Insurance Company: Mr. Srinivasa Rao and Mr. Kota Subbarao