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

Promotions don’t satisfy the grounds to attain the posts meant for Direct Recruitment

In Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha (2025 INSC 87), the Supreme Court held that no promotion can be claimed to a post reserved solely for direct recruitment under statutory rules. Rejecting a Peon’s claim for appointment as a Tracer, it said bypassing open selection would violate Article 16 and transparency in public jobs. The... Read more » Read more »

Supreme Court: Partner’s Contributed Property Becomes Firm’s Asset, Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Ownership

In Sachin Jaiswal vs. Hotel Alka Raje, SLP(C) No. 18717/2022, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932, any asset contributed by a partner to a firm becomes the property of the firm, and neither the contributing partner nor their legal heirs can claim exclusive ownership over such assets. The... Read more » Read more »

Bijoy Kumar Moni Vs. Paresh Manna & Anr

In Bijoy Kumar Moni vs. Paresh Manna & Anr., the Supreme Court clarified that for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused. It emphasized that an authorized signatory of a company cannot be considered the “drawer” of the cheque... 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.