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

Kirpal Singh Vs. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors

In Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors, the Supreme Court condoned a 126-day delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time spent before courts without jurisdiction, applies to Section Read more »

Sazid Khan Vs. State of Haryana, 2018 Scc Online P&H 1733

The court held that, Criminal law does not recognise the terms 'same cause of action’. A per se FIR cannot be cancelled once evidence implicating the petitioner in a conspiracy has been discovered. As soon as an accused makes an attempt to commit an offence, they are subject to punishment, Read more »

Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India & Ors

In Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized that the benefit of a favorable judicial order against government actions should be extended to similarly situated individuals without requiring them to approach the courts. The appellant, an officer in the Army Dental Corps, sought 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.