Madras High Court

Aadhar Card prevails over FIR entries as authoritative proof of age in motor accident claims.

The Branch Manager vs Srirenga Narayanamoorthi

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: June 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The first respondent (claimant) filed a claim petition (MCOP.No.1076 of 2021) seeking compensation for spinal cord injuries sustained in a road accident on February 5, 2020

Source reference: p. 2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge, Tiruppur) awarded the claimant Rs. 32,52,144 with interest, holding the insurance company and the vehicle owner jointly and severally liable

Source reference: p. 2

The Tribunal determined the claimant's age as 48 years based on an Aadhar Card (Ex.P7)

Source reference: p. 2

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged this award, contending that the claimant’s age should be 53 based on police records (FIR) and that the driver lacked a valid license, constituting a policy violation

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the claimant's age as 48 years using the Aadhar card instead of the age mentioned in the FIR and police records

Source reference: p. 3-4

2. Whether there was a breach of policy conditions regarding the driver's lack of a valid driving license

Source reference: p. 3-4
03

Law Applied

The court applied Section 166 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the adjudication of claim petitions and appeals

Source reference: p. 2

Under the principles of Indian Evidence Law, the court applied the doctrine that documents issued ante litem motam (before the dispute arose), such as an Aadhar Card, carry higher probative value for determining age than secondary records like an FIR or police reports created post-accident

Source reference: p. 3-4

Furthermore, the burden of proof lies on the insurer to prove a breach of policy conditions (such as the absence of a driving license) through affirmative evidence

Source reference: p. 4
04

Reasoning

The court found that while Exs. P2 and P3 (police records) listed the claimant's age as 52, these were recorded by police during the FIR process and held less "probative value" than the Aadhar card (Ex.P7), which existed prior to the accident

Source reference: p. 3-4

The court noted the claimant's explanation that his name and details were inaccurately recorded in the police exhibits

Source reference: p. 4

Regarding the alleged policy violation, the court observed that the Insurance Company failed to examine any witnesses or present evidence to substantiate the claim that the driver did not possess a valid license

Source reference: p. 4

In the absence of such proof, the insurer's liability remains intact

Source reference: p. 4
05

Holding

The court held that the age fixed by the Tribunal was proper based on documentary evidence and that the insurer failed to prove any breach of policy conditions

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal's award dated January 2, 2026. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded

Source reference: p. 4
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

The Branch ManagervsSrirenga Narayanamoorthi

Madras High Court · June 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment