The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of a person’s age, holding that a postmortem report supported by medical assessment can carry greater evidentiary value when the two records differ.
Justice Amit Seth made the observation while deciding an appeal seeking higher compensation for the parents of a 13-year-old boy who died in a road accident in December 2019.
The case, Rajesh Singh & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Ors., arose from a dispute over the boy’s age, which had a direct bearing on the compensation payable to his parents.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhind, had assessed the boy’s age at 14 years, seven months and nine days based on his Aadhaar card. The insurance company challenged this assessment, arguing that the postmortem report had recorded his age as 13 years.
Accepting the insurance company’s contention, the High Court said Aadhaar is primarily an identity document and cannot independently establish a person’s age beyond doubt.
The Court noted that a postmortem report records age following a medical examination, making it a more dependable source in the circumstances of the case.
It observed that the medical opinion documented during the postmortem examination provided a more reliable basis for determining the deceased boy’s age than the Aadhaar entry.
Dispute over the compensation multiplier
The parents had approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the ₹5.45 lakh compensation awarded by the MACT in September 2022.
Apart from challenging the age assessment, the insurance company disputed the multiplier used to calculate compensation. It argued that since the boy was below 15 years old, a multiplier of 15 should apply instead of 18.
The parents opposed the argument, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Ku Aarti v. Udayveer Singh, where a multiplier of 18 had been adopted in a case involving the death of a nine-year-old child.
However, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Divya v. National Insurance Company Limited (2022) and held that a multiplier of 15 was applicable in cases involving children below 15 years of age.
Compensation increased to ₹8.25 lakh
The High Court also accepted the parents’ submission that the boy’s notional income should be assessed with reference to the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker.
Accordingly, it fixed his monthly income at ₹7,950.
After deducting 50 per cent towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 15, the Court calculated the loss of dependency at ₹7,15,500.
The compensation was further enhanced through the following amounts:
-
₹40,000 each to the father and mother towards loss of parental consortium.
-
₹15,000 towards funeral expenses.
-
₹15,000 towards loss of estate.
With these additions, the total compensation payable to the parents was revised from ₹5.45 lakh to ₹8,25,500.
The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed that the enhanced amount of ₹2,80,500 would carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the original compensation claim until payment.
The ruling underscores an important distinction between identity documentation and evidence used to establish age in compensation proceedings, particularly where conflicting records have a direct impact on the amount payable to accident victims’ families.