Saroj & Ors. Vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. (2024 INSC 816)

In Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. (2024 INSC 816), the Supreme Court clarified that the Aadhar card should only be treated as proof of identity and not as definitive proof of date of birth. This decision emerged in the context of determining compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1, the Court emphasized that where there is a discrepancy in the date of birth between an Aadhar card and a School Leaving Certificate, the latter should be considered the authoritative source for establishing age. This ruling serves as a reminder of the Court’s dedication to fair and accurate standards, particularly in evaluating claims for compensation in accident cases. It reinforces the importance of using reliable documents for age determination, which can significantly affect the outcome of compensation claims.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Accused Has A Right To Undergo Voluntary Narco-Analysis Test At An Appropriate Stage

In Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 810, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal, sharply criticised the Bihar High Court for permitting involuntary narco-analysis tests and conducting a roving inquiry at the bail stage. The case arose when the Appellant, arrested along with co-accused for allegedly kidnapping, subjecting his wife... Read more » Read more »

State Project Director, Up Education for All Project Board & Ors. Vs. Saroj Maurya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3465 OF 2023

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an SLP set aside the judgment and remanded a matter back to the Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court for parties to appear and argue afresh as the impugned judgment did not contain any reasoning and merely agreed with the judgment of the single judge which was... Read more » Read more »

M/s. Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (2024 INSC 760)

The appellant initially filed a return in November 1989 and revised it twice. The Income Tax Officer rejected the second revised return, declaring that it was barred by limitation u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which only allows a revised return to be filed before the earlier of two dates – one year... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.