[2024] 10 S.C.R. 939 : 2024 INSC 816 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 12077-12078 of 2024) 24 October 2024 [Sanjay Karol* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT was justified and in accordance with law. Headnotes†

Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate: Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification Authority of India, to the effect that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth – Judicial notice has been taken of the circular. [Paras 9.6-9.8] Motor accident – Compensation – Claim of – Determination of age of the victim – Death of victim in a motorcycle accident – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- with an interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition – However, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.9,22,336, on basis of the minimum wage rate and multiplier of 13 on basis of the victim’s age as 47 years at the time of his death as per his aadhar card – Challenge to, contending that the multiplier applicable would be 14 as his age was 45 years as per his school leaving certificate: Held: High Court erred in reducing the compensation – Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the court below – It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise * Author 940 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports

it beyond redemption – Question before the High Court was not as to which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of the deceased was ‘better’ – Since nothing on record to establish that the rates notified by the District Commissioner, would not apply to the deceased, no reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal – Furthermore, School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition under sub-section (2) of s.94 of the 2015 Act – Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth – No error in the MACT’s determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate – As regards, the interest awarded, no reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6% – Compensation received by way of claims filed before MACT is either born out of injury or death of the claimant or family member of the claimants and so, the amount awarded must do justice to them – It necessarily has to be just and reasonable – Thus, fit to enhance the rate of interest to 8% – Notional income to be taken as Rs.9000/- as found by the tribunal; and the multiplier to be applied is 14 – Just compensation rounded off to Rs.15 lakhs with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. [Paras 9, 9.1-9.3, 9.6-9.8, 10-12, 14] Case Law Cited

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2019) 1 SCC 1; Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919; Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740; Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553; Noor Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514; Muskan v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649; Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7085; Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965; Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814; State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India and Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022; Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union of India & Anr., Order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022; Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5058; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 941 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. List of Acts Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. List of Keywords

Aadhar Card; Suitability of Aadhar Card as proof of age; School leaving certificate; Proof of date of birth; Date of birth; Unique Identification Authority of India; Circular No.08 of 2023; Establish identity; Judicial notice; Motor accident; Compensation; Interest; Minimum wage rate; Multiplier of 13; Multiplier of 14; Appellate proceedings; Notional income; Just and reasonable; Enhance rate of interest. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12077-12078 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2023 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 8504 and 6836 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Ms. Shefali Choudhary, Ms. Namita Choudhary, Advs. for the Appellants. Suyash Vyas, Gopal Singh, Anil Hooda, Shafik Ahmed, Ajay Sharma, Sunny, Satendra Singh Baghel, S. Srinivasa Chary, Manoj Kumar, Ms. Parul Priya, Ms. Anupama Singh, Varun Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Sanjay Karol J. Leave Granted. 2. These appeals are at the instance of the wife and sons1 of the deceased Silak Ram, who was on 4th August, 2015, travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12X-2820, along with one Rohit. Both were found lying injured on the side of the road. The 1 Hereinafter “claimant-appellants” 942 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports former had succumbed to his injuries and the latter was taken for treatment to Medical College, Rohtak.

3. One Krishan who had discovered the deceased and the injured person on the road, reported the matter to the police and, during the investigation of such incident, the statement of the injured Rohit revealed the particulars of the offending vehicles. In connection thereto, F.I.R.No.481/2015 dated 4th August, 2015 under Sections 279/337, 304A was registered at Police Station, Sampla. 4. The claim petition, bearing No.25 of 2015 was instituted by the family members of the deceased on 16th December, 2015 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak.2 Vide Award dated 26th April, 2017 an amount of Rs.19,35,400/- was passed with an interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent-insurance company was directed to deposit the money into the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants. However, for claimant Nos.2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant time, their share of Rs.6 lakhs each was directed to be placed in fixed deposit till the age of majority or for a period of five years, whichever is later.

5. On appeal to the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th March, 2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of 2017 (O&M) and 6836 of 2017 (O&M) the amount awarded by the MACT was reduced to Rs.9,22,336/- noting that minimum wage rates issued by the Government are uniformly applicable throughout the State and, therefore, constitute a better measure for calculating the notional income of a deceased person, as opposed to special DC rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner of a District, and, therefore, would only be applicable to that particular district. Further, it was observed that with respect to the age at the time of death, the Aadhar Card of the deceased records his date of birth to be 1st January 1969; thus, the age comes to 47 years. Hence, the multiplier applicable would be 13. 6. The claimant-appellants, aggrieved by the reduction, have approached this Court. Before us, it was contended that the multiplier applicable would be 14 since, in the School Leave Certificate the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 7th October, 1970. His age, then at the time of the accident was 45 years. They were further aggrieved by the calculation of monthly income to be Rs.5,886/-. 2 Hereinafter “MACT” [2024] 10 S.C.R. 943 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.

7. Notice was issued on 17th October, 2023. The matter was then sent to Lok Adalat by way of an order dated 23rd July 2024. A subsequent order dated 2nd August 2024 records that the matter could not be settled. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The questions arising for consideration are - (a) in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, as in this case between the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and (b) whether in the facts of the case, the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, was justified and in accordance with law? 9. This Court is of the view that the High Court erred in undertaking the reduction as it has. The reasons therefor are recorded in the following paragraphs. 9.1 The general rule insofar as appellate proceedings are concerned is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the Court below. It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise it beyond redemption. 9.2 It is also well settled that an order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible, which, in the impugned order the High Court seems to have done.

9.3 The question before the High Court was not as to which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of the deceased was ‘better’. Since there is nothing on record to establish that the rates notified by the District Commissioner, Rohtak, would not apply to the deceased, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Further, the testimonies of PWs 2, 5 and 6 show that he is an agriculturist who owned his own tractor and a JCB machine. 9.4 The second aspect is the age of the deceased. The High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased, i.e., 1st January, 1969. However, as submitted by the claimant-appellants, the School Leaving Certificate records the date of birth of the deceased to be 7th October, 1970. This will affect the multiplier to be applied. Let us now consider this question. 944 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports It has to be noted at the outset that a School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20153 reads thus: “(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining —

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board…” (Emphasis Supplied) Whether the Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person’s age, has come up for consideration before some High Courts, albeit in the context of different statutes. We shall refer to a few instances but, prior to doing so, it is also important to take note of the purpose behind introduction of the Aadhar Scheme. In the Constitution Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (5-J.)4 Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. wrote as hereinbelow extracted, encapsulating the object and purpose of Aadhar:-“24. Before adverting to the discussion on various issues that have been raised in these petitions, it would be apposite to first understand the structure of 3 Hereafter “JJ Act” 4 [2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2019) 1 SCC 1 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 945

Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. the Aadhaar Act and how it operates, having regard to various provisions contained therein. UIDAI was established in the year 2009 by an administrative order i.e. by resolution of the Govt. of India, Planning Commission, vide notification dated January 28, 2009. The object of the establishment of the said Authority was primarily to lay down policies to implement the Unique Identification Scheme (for short the ‘UIS’) of the Government, by which residents of India were to be provided unique identity number. The aim was to serve this as proof of identity, which is unique in nature, as each individual will have only one identity with no chance of duplication. Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes. This was the primary reason, viz. to ensure correct identification of targeted beneficiaries for delivery of various subsidies, benefits, services, grants, wages and other social benefits schemes which are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India ... Summing up the Scheme: 62. The whole architecture of Aadhaar is devised to give unique identity to the citizens of this country.

No doubt, a person can have various documents on the basis of which that individual can establish her identity. It may be in the form of a passport, Permanent Account Number (PAN) card, ration card and so on. For the purpose of enrolment itself number of documents are prescribed which an individual can produce on the basis of which Aadhaar card can be issued. Thus, such documents, in a way, are also proof of identity. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Aadhaar card as a means of identity and other documents through which identity can be established. Enrolment for Aadhaar card also requires giving of demographic information as well as biometric information which is in the form of iris and fingerprints. This process eliminates any chance of duplication. ….. It is for this reason the Aadhaar 946 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports card is known as Unique Identification (UID). Such an identity is unparalleled.” (Emphasis supplied)

9.5 Turning back to the question of whether Aadhar Card can serve as a proof of age, a perusal of some High Court judgments reveals that this question has been considered on quite a few occasions in the context of the JJ Act. Illustratively, in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P.5 a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations have been made in Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P.6 holding that if the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.7 held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof of age”. Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,8 Muskan v. State of Punjab9 as well as several other orders/judgments, in various contexts. Views aligning with the one referred to above have been taken by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P.;10 the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P.11 and the High Court of Kerala in Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala.12 5 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919 6 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740 7 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553

8 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514 9 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649 10 2019 SCC OnLine All 7085 11 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965 12 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 947 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. 9.6 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India,13 by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth. This office memorandum dated 20th December, 2018 was taken note of by a learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors.14 in its order dated 28th July, 2023. The Circular is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:- F.No.HQ-13065/1/2022-AUTH-II HQ/8075 Unique Identification Authority of India (Authentication and Verification Division) UIDAI Headquarter Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir Gole Market, New Delhi-110 001 Dated 22.12.2023 Circular No.08 of 2023 Subject: Accepting Aadhar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) – regarding. It has been observed that AUAs/KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhar card / e-Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of Date of Birth (DoB).

2. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is a unique 12 digit ID issued to a resident after he/ she undergoes the enrolment process by submitting his/her demographic and biometric information. Once a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenticate the resident through various modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Regulations framed there under. 13 Abbreviated as ‘UIDAI’ 14 Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022 948 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by the resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as specified under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar enrolment, provided on the UIDAI website (https:// uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023 Aadhar List of documents English.pdf). Further, it is to be noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and UPDATE) Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolment and update data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III. 4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated 2-0.12.2018 issued by MeitY through UIDAI, where it has been stated that “An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth” (copy enclosed).

5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/S Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed). 6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents. 7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Encl : As above. (Sanjeev Yadav) Director Tel: 011-23478609 Email: [email protected] …” (Emphasis supplied) [2024] 10 S.C.R. 949 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. 9.7 Judicial notice has also been taken of the circular above. Recently, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India & Anr.15 in view thereof directed the release of the petitioner’s pension in accordance with the date as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration. 9.8 In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi16 a learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a case where the petitioner-mother sought a writ of habeas corpus for her daughter, recorded a statement made for and on behalf of UIDAI that “Aadhar Card may not be used as proof of date of birth.”

9.9 Here, we may clarify that we have not expressed any view on the merits of these cases before their respective High Courts, and reference has only been made to them for the limited purpose of examining the suitability of the Aadhar Card as proof of age. 10. That being the position, as it stands with respect to the determination of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the claimant-appellants, based on the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, we find no error in the learned MACT’s determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate. 11. On another aspect, i.e., the interest awarded, we find there to be no reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6%. The High Courts cannot lose sight of the fact that compensation received by way of claims filed before MACT is either born out of injury or death of the claimant or family member of the claimants and so, the amount awarded must do justice to them. It necessarily has to be just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, we find it fit to enhance the rate of interest to 8% to be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. 12. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the notional income to be taken shall be Rs.9000/- as found by the Tribunal; given that 15 Order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/ Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022 16 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5058. Judgment dated 24th July, 2024. 950 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports the date of birth is, apropos the above discussion, to be taken as 7th October 1970 and consequently, the multiplier to be applied is 14. 13. Hence, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi17 is recalculated in tabulated form as under :-Heads MACT HC Final Compensation Payable Monthly Rs.9,000/- (pg.38) Rs.5,886/- Rs.9,000/-Income Annual Rs.1,08,000/- Rs.70,632/- Rs.1,08,000/-income Future @ 30% (2,700/-) @ 25% (1,471/-) @ 25% (2,250/-) + prospects + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.5,886/- Rs.9,000/-= Rs.11,700/- Rs.7,357/- p.m. = Rs.11,250/- p.m. p.m. Personal 11,700-3900 7,357 – 2,452 11250-3,750 Expenses = Rs.7,800/- p.m. = Rs.4,906/- Rs.7,500/-p.m. (Deduction of Rs.93,600/- p.a. = Rs.90,000/- p.a 1/3 ) Multiplier 14 13 14 Loss of Rs.93,600 x 14 = Rs.58,872 x Rs.90,000 x 14 = dependency Rs.13,10,400/- 13 = Rs.12,60,000/-Rs.7,65,336/- Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-(10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-expenses (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) Loss of Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.48,400 /-Consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/- Total Rs.20,35,400/- + Rs.9,22,336/- + Rs.14,41,500/- + compensation 7.5% interest 6% interest 8% interest from date of filing of claim petition 17 [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 951

Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. 14. The appeals are allowed, the total amount, i.e., Rs.14,41,500, in the interest of just compensation is rounded off to Rs.15,00,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition to be released to the rightful claimants in the manner directed by the Tribunal. Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of. No order as to cost. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 939 : 2024 INSC 816 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 12077-12078 of 2024) 24 October 2024 [Sanjay Karol* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT was justified and in accordance with law. Headnotes†

Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate: Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification Authority of India, to the effect that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth – Judicial notice has been taken of the circular. [Paras 9.6-9.8] Motor accident – Compensation – Claim of – Determination of age of the victim – Death of victim in a motorcycle accident – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- with an interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition – However, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.9,22,336, on basis of the minimum wage rate and multiplier of 13 on basis of the victim’s age as 47 years at the time of his death as per his aadhar card – Challenge to, contending that the multiplier applicable would be 14 as his age was 45 years as per his school leaving certificate: Held: High Court erred in reducing the compensation – Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the court below – It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise * Author 940 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports

it beyond redemption – Question before the High Court was not as to which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of the deceased was ‘better’ – Since nothing on record to establish that the rates notified by the District Commissioner, would not apply to the deceased, no reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal – Furthermore, School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition under sub-section (2) of s.94 of the 2015 Act – Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth – No error in the MACT’s determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate – As regards, the interest awarded, no reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6% – Compensation received by way of claims filed before MACT is either born out of injury or death of the claimant or family member of the claimants and so, the amount awarded must do justice to them – It necessarily has to be just and reasonable – Thus, fit to enhance the rate of interest to 8% – Notional income to be taken as Rs.9000/- as found by the tribunal; and the multiplier to be applied is 14 – Just compensation rounded off to Rs.15 lakhs with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. [Paras 9, 9.1-9.3, 9.6-9.8, 10-12, 14] Case Law Cited

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2019) 1 SCC 1; Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919; Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740; Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553; Noor Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514; Muskan v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649; Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7085; Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965; Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814; State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India and Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022; Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union of India & Anr., Order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022; Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5058; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 941 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. List of Acts Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. List of Keywords

Aadhar Card; Suitability of Aadhar Card as proof of age; School leaving certificate; Proof of date of birth; Date of birth; Unique Identification Authority of India; Circular No.08 of 2023; Establish identity; Judicial notice; Motor accident; Compensation; Interest; Minimum wage rate; Multiplier of 13; Multiplier of 14; Appellate proceedings; Notional income; Just and reasonable; Enhance rate of interest. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12077-12078 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2023 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 8504 and 6836 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Ms. Shefali Choudhary, Ms. Namita Choudhary, Advs. for the Appellants. Suyash Vyas, Gopal Singh, Anil Hooda, Shafik Ahmed, Ajay Sharma, Sunny, Satendra Singh Baghel, S. Srinivasa Chary, Manoj Kumar, Ms. Parul Priya, Ms. Anupama Singh, Varun Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Sanjay Karol J. Leave Granted. 2. These appeals are at the instance of the wife and sons1 of the deceased Silak Ram, who was on 4th August, 2015, travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12X-2820, along with one Rohit. Both were found lying injured on the side of the road. The 1 Hereinafter “claimant-appellants” 942 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports former had succumbed to his injuries and the latter was taken for treatment to Medical College, Rohtak.

3. One Krishan who had discovered the deceased and the injured person on the road, reported the matter to the police and, during the investigation of such incident, the statement of the injured Rohit revealed the particulars of the offending vehicles. In connection thereto, F.I.R.No.481/2015 dated 4th August, 2015 under Sections 279/337, 304A was registered at Police Station, Sampla. 4. The claim petition, bearing No.25 of 2015 was instituted by the family members of the deceased on 16th December, 2015 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak.2 Vide Award dated 26th April, 2017 an amount of Rs.19,35,400/- was passed with an interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent-insurance company was directed to deposit the money into the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants. However, for claimant Nos.2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant time, their share of Rs.6 lakhs each was directed to be placed in fixed deposit till the age of majority or for a period of five years, whichever is later.

5. On appeal to the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th March, 2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of 2017 (O&M) and 6836 of 2017 (O&M) the amount awarded by the MACT was reduced to Rs.9,22,336/- noting that minimum wage rates issued by the Government are uniformly applicable throughout the State and, therefore, constitute a better measure for calculating the notional income of a deceased person, as opposed to special DC rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner of a District, and, therefore, would only be applicable to that particular district. Further, it was observed that with respect to the age at the time of death, the Aadhar Card of the deceased records his date of birth to be 1st January 1969; thus, the age comes to 47 years. Hence, the multiplier applicable would be 13. 6. The claimant-appellants, aggrieved by the reduction, have approached this Court. Before us, it was contended that the multiplier applicable would be 14 since, in the School Leave Certificate the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 7th October, 1970. His age, then at the time of the accident was 45 years. They were further aggrieved by the calculation of monthly income to be Rs.5,886/-. 2 Hereinafter “MACT” [2024] 10 S.C.R. 943 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors.

7. Notice was issued on 17th October, 2023. The matter was then sent to Lok Adalat by way of an order dated 23rd July 2024. A subsequent order dated 2nd August 2024 records that the matter could not be settled. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The questions arising for consideration are - (a) in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, as in this case between the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and (b) whether in the facts of the case, the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, was justified and in accordance with law? 9. This Court is of the view that the High Court erred in undertaking the reduction as it has. The reasons therefor are recorded in the following paragraphs. 9.1 The general rule insofar as appellate proceedings are concerned is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the Court below. It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise it beyond redemption. 9.2 It is also well settled that an order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible, which, in the impugned order the High Court seems to have done.

9.3 The question before the High Court was not as to which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of the deceased was ‘better’. Since there is nothing on record to establish that the rates notified by the District Commissioner, Rohtak, would not apply to the deceased, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Further, the testimonies of PWs 2, 5 and 6 show that he is an agriculturist who owned his own tractor and a JCB machine. 9.4 The second aspect is the age of the deceased. The High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased, i.e., 1st January, 1969. However, as submitted by the claimant-appellants, the School Leaving Certificate records the date of birth of the deceased to be 7th October, 1970. This will affect the multiplier to be applied. Let us now consider this question. 944 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports It has to be noted at the outset that a School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20153 reads thus: “(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining —

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board…” (Emphasis Supplied) Whether the Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person’s age, has come up for consideration before some High Courts, albeit in the context of different statutes. We shall refer to a few instances but, prior to doing so, it is also important to take note of the purpose behind introduction of the Aadhar Scheme. In the Constitution Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (5-J.)4 Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. wrote as hereinbelow extracted, encapsulating the object and purpose of Aadhar:-“24. Before adverting to the discussion on various issues that have been raised in these petitions, it would be apposite to first understand the structure of 3 Hereafter “JJ Act” 4 [2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2019) 1 SCC 1 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 945

Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. the Aadhaar Act and how it operates, having regard to various provisions contained therein. UIDAI was established in the year 2009 by an administrative order i.e. by resolution of the Govt. of India, Planning Commission, vide notification dated January 28, 2009. The object of the establishment of the said Authority was primarily to lay down policies to implement the Unique Identification Scheme (for short the ‘UIS’) of the Government, by which residents of India were to be provided unique identity number. The aim was to serve this as proof of identity, which is unique in nature, as each individual will have only one identity with no chance of duplication. Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes. This was the primary reason, viz. to ensure correct identification of targeted beneficiaries for delivery of various subsidies, benefits, services, grants, wages and other social benefits schemes which are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India ... Summing up the Scheme: 62. The whole architecture of Aadhaar is devised to give unique identity to the citizens of this country.

No doubt, a person can have various documents on the basis of which that individual can establish her identity. It may be in the form of a passport, Permanent Account Number (PAN) card, ration card and so on. For the purpose of enrolment itself number of documents are prescribed which an individual can produce on the basis of which Aadhaar card can be issued. Thus, such documents, in a way, are also proof of identity. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Aadhaar card as a means of identity and other documents through which identity can be established. Enrolment for Aadhaar card also requires giving of demographic information as well as biometric information which is in the form of iris and fingerprints. This process eliminates any chance of duplication. ….. It is for this reason the Aadhaar 946 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports card is known as Unique Identification (UID). Such an identity is unparalleled.” (Emphasis supplied)

9.5 Turning back to the question of whether Aadhar Card can serve as a proof of age, a perusal of some High Court judgments reveals that this question has been considered on quite a few occasions in the context of the JJ Act. Illustratively, in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P.5 a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations have been made in Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P.6 holding that if the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.7 held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof of age”. Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,8 Muskan v. State of Punjab9 as well as several other orders/judgments, in various contexts. Views aligning with the one referred to above have been taken by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P.;10 the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P.11 and the High Court of Kerala in Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala.12 5 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919 6 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740 7 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553

8 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 1514 9 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 3649 10 2019 SCC OnLine All 7085 11 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965 12 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 947 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. 9.6 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India,13 by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth. This office memorandum dated 20th December, 2018 was taken note of by a learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors.14 in its order dated 28th July, 2023. The Circular is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:- F.No.HQ-13065/1/2022-AUTH-II HQ/8075 Unique Identification Authority of India (Authentication and Verification Division) UIDAI Headquarter Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir Gole Market, New Delhi-110 001 Dated 22.12.2023 Circular No.08 of 2023 Subject: Accepting Aadhar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) – regarding. It has been observed that AUAs/KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhar card / e-Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of Date of Birth (DoB).

2. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is a unique 12 digit ID issued to a resident after he/ she undergoes the enrolment process by submitting his/her demographic and biometric information. Once a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenticate the resident through various modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Regulations framed there under. 13 Abbreviated as ‘UIDAI’ 14 Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022 948 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by the resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as specified under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar enrolment, provided on the UIDAI website (https:// uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023 Aadhar List of documents English.pdf). Further, it is to be noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and UPDATE) Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolment and update data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III. 4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated 2-0.12.2018 issued by MeitY through UIDAI, where it has been stated that “An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth” (copy enclosed).

5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/S Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed). 6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents. 7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Encl : As above. (Sanjeev Yadav) Director Tel: 011-23478609 Email: [email protected] …” (Emphasis supplied) [2024] 10 S.C.R. 949 Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. 9.7 Judicial notice has also been taken of the circular above. Recently, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India & Anr.15 in view thereof directed the release of the petitioner’s pension in accordance with the date as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration. 9.8 In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi16 a learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a case where the petitioner-mother sought a writ of habeas corpus for her daughter, recorded a statement made for and on behalf of UIDAI that “Aadhar Card may not be used as proof of date of birth.”

9.9 Here, we may clarify that we have not expressed any view on the merits of these cases before their respective High Courts, and reference has only been made to them for the limited purpose of examining the suitability of the Aadhar Card as proof of age. 10. That being the position, as it stands with respect to the determination of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the claimant-appellants, based on the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, we find no error in the learned MACT’s determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate. 11. On another aspect, i.e., the interest awarded, we find there to be no reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6%. The High Courts cannot lose sight of the fact that compensation received by way of claims filed before MACT is either born out of injury or death of the claimant or family member of the claimants and so, the amount awarded must do justice to them. It necessarily has to be just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, we find it fit to enhance the rate of interest to 8% to be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. 12. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the notional income to be taken shall be Rs.9000/- as found by the Tribunal; given that 15 Order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in R/ Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022 16 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5058. Judgment dated 24th July, 2024. 950 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports the date of birth is, apropos the above discussion, to be taken as 7th October 1970 and consequently, the multiplier to be applied is 14. 13. Hence, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi17 is recalculated in tabulated form as under :-Heads MACT HC Final Compensation Payable Monthly Rs.9,000/- (pg.38) Rs.5,886/- Rs.9,000/-Income Annual Rs.1,08,000/- Rs.70,632/- Rs.1,08,000/-income Future @ 30% (2,700/-) @ 25% (1,471/-) @ 25% (2,250/-) + prospects + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.5,886/- Rs.9,000/-= Rs.11,700/- Rs.7,357/- p.m. = Rs.11,250/- p.m. p.m. Personal 11,700-3900 7,357 – 2,452 11250-3,750 Expenses = Rs.7,800/- p.m. = Rs.4,906/- Rs.7,500/-p.m. (Deduction of Rs.93,600/- p.a. = Rs.90,000/- p.a 1/3 ) Multiplier 14 13 14 Loss of Rs.93,600 x 14 = Rs.58,872 x Rs.90,000 x 14 = dependency Rs.13,10,400/- 13 = Rs.12,60,000/-Rs.7,65,336/- Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-(10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-expenses (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) Loss of Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.48,400 /-Consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/- Total Rs.20,35,400/- + Rs.9,22,336/- + Rs.14,41,500/- + compensation 7.5% interest 6% interest 8% interest from date of filing of claim petition 17 [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 951

Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. 14. The appeals are allowed, the total amount, i.e., Rs.14,41,500, in the interest of just compensation is rounded off to Rs.15,00,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition to be released to the rightful claimants in the manner directed by the Tribunal. Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of. No order as to cost. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain