MP High Court: Aadhaar Is Primarily An Identity Document, Not Conclusive Proof Of Age

Is an Aadhaar card enough to prove the age of a child killed in a road accident? The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has said no, holding that the document is "primarily an identity document" and cannot, by itself, decide the age on which accident compensation is calculated.

Justice Amit Seth made the observation while partly allowing an appeal by the parents of a minor boy who died in a motor accident, and while also allowing the insurance company's cross-objections. The Court corrected the age and the multiplier used by the Claims Tribunal, yet still raised the final compensation to Rs 8,25,500.

The accident took place on 24 December 2019 and claimed the life of Harendra Singh Baghel. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind, awarded Rs 5,45,000 with 6% interest on 14 September 2022. His parents, Rajesh Singh and another, approached the High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking more. Negligence and liability were not in dispute.

Arguments on both sides

Advocate Dharmendra Rishishwar, for the parents, argued that the boy's notional income should be fixed at the minimum wage of an unskilled worker on the date of the accident, Rs 7,950 a month. He defended the Tribunal's multiplier of 18, relying on the Supreme Court's order in Ku. Aarti v. Udayveer Singh, which was followed by a coordinate bench of the High Court in Smt. Manisha Gurjar v. Parmal Singh Gurjar.

Advocate Bal Krishna Agrawal, for the insurance company, argued that the Tribunal wrongly relied on the Aadhaar card to hold the boy was 14 years, 7 months and 9 days old. The postmortem report (Ex.P10) recorded his age as 13 years, he said. He also contended that a multiplier of 15, and not 18, applies to victims up to 15 years of age. No one appeared for the owner and driver of the vehicle despite service.

Why the postmortem report prevailed

On age, the Court agreed with the insurer. It said the age in a postmortem report rests on medical assessment, and found it "a more reliable basis for determining the age of the deceased". The boy's age was taken as 13 years.

On the multiplier, the Court examined Supreme Court rulings in Divya v. National Insurance Company Limited and Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, which in turn rest on the three-judge bench decision in Reshma Kumari. These hold that for victims up to 15 years, a multiplier of 15 applies. The Court noted the Supreme Court's reasoning that child labour law treats a person below 14 as a "child", which justifies a lower multiplier for this group.

It concluded that "the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is 15 and not 18, as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal."

How the compensation was recalculated

Taking the monthly income at Rs 7,950 under the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority guidelines, the Court arrived at an annual income of Rs 95,400. After a 50% deduction for personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency came to Rs 47,700. With the multiplier of 15, loss of dependency stood at Rs 7,15,500.

The Court added Rs 80,000 for loss of parental consortium (Rs 40,000 to each parent), Rs 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs 15,000 for loss of estate, heads the Tribunal had not awarded. The total came to Rs 8,25,500, an increase of Rs 2,80,500.

The insurer had also asked that interest on any enhancement run only from the date the parents paid additional court fees, after they raised the appeal's valuation from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 8 lakh. The Court rejected this, noting that the enhancement of Rs 2,80,500 falls within the original valuation of Rs 3 lakh. The entire enhanced amount will carry interest at the Tribunal's rate from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

The remaining terms of the award stand intact, and the appeal was disposed of.

Case Title: Rajesh Singh and Another vs. Rahul Singh and Others

Order Date: 3 November 2026

Bench: Justice Amit Seth