Aadhaar alone can't determine victim's age in accident claims: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that an insurance company cannot be held liable for a motor accident merely because it received the insurance premium before the accident, according to a Times of India report. The court held that an insurance contract comes into effect only from the date and time specified in the policy, not from the time the premium is paid.

In the same judgment, the court also found fault with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's reliance on an Aadhaar card alone to determine the age of an injured claimant. It revised the claimant's age and disability assessment, resulting in enhanced compensation in all three connected claims arising from the accident.

Background of the case


The case stems from a road accident on the night of April 19, 2019, when a Tata Sumo owned by Govind Sahni and driven by his brother, Gopi Sahni, collided with a motorcycle carrying three men.

Also Read: Getting Aadhaar just got tougher: Here's what's changing and why

Two riders, Panchram Bhunjia and Bisnath Bhunjia, died in the accident, while the third rider, Ranjit Bhunjia, survived after undergoing an above-knee amputation. Their families approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

The tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants but held only the driver and vehicle owner liable, absolving the insurance company of responsibility.

The vehicle owner challenged this finding, arguing that the insurance premium had been paid through an agent at around 4 pm on April 19, and the amount was credited to the insurer's account by approximately 4.35 pm — several hours before the accident occurred later that night.

According to the owner, once the insurer had received the premium, it could not deny liability simply because the policy document was formally issued the next day with effect from April 20.

Separately, injured claimant Ranjit Bhunjia challenged the tribunal's calculation of compensation. The tribunal had relied on his Aadhaar card, which recorded his age as 68 years, leading to the application of a lower multiplier while computing future loss of earnings. However, his claim petition, medical records and disability certificate consistently reflected his age as around 58 to 60 years.

Both the driver-owner and the claimants approached the High Court, with the claimants also seeking enhancement of compensation.

What the High Court held

Justice Sachin Singh Rajput rejected the contention that receipt of the premium alone made the insurer liable. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the court observed that "date of issuance of insurance policy would be the relevant date for all purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of issuance of receipt."

The court also noted that the individual who collected and deposited the premium was not an authorised agent of the insurance company. Based on the evidence, it held that the insurer "cannot be held vicariously liable for any action of the agent while there is no authority upon him to act on behalf of the insurance company."

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that "the contract of insurance only commenced from the date and time of issuance of the insurance policy," which, in this case, was 12:01 am on April 20, around two hours after the accident had taken place.

Tribunal erred in relying solely on Aadhaar

On the issue of compensation for Ranjit Bhunjia, the High Court found that the tribunal had wrongly relied only on his Aadhaar card to determine his age.

The court noted that while the Aadhaar card recorded his age as 68 years, his claim petition mentioned he was 58 years old, and both the disability certificate and treatment records placed his age at about 60 years.

Referring to a 2024 Supreme Court judgment, the court observed that the tribunal's conclusion that he was 68 years old "does not appear to be correct." It accordingly treated his age as falling within the 61–65 years bracket for the purpose of calculating compensation.

The court also increased the assessment of his functional disability from 35% to 60%, observing that as a carpenter, his livelihood depended on "physical strength and skill", both of which had been severely affected by the amputation.

Compensation enhanced

The High Court also rejected the argument that the victims were contributorily negligent, observing that a traffic violation by itself does not establish negligence unless it is shown to have caused the accident.

While dismissing the appeals filed by the driver and vehicle owner, the court partly allowed the claimants' cross-objections and substantially enhanced the compensation awarded.

The compensation payable was revised as follows:

• Ranjit Bhunjia (injured): from Rs 96,400 to Rs 3,90,800
• Death of Bisnath Bhunjia: from Rs 2,18,200 to Rs 4,26,400
• Death of Panchram Bhunjia: from Rs 10,73,900 to Rs 21,57,800

The enhanced compensation will carry interest at 6% per annum from February 9, 2022

(With TOI inputs)