The Chhattisgarh High Court, sitting in a bench presided over by Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, examined two distinct but interconnected questions that frequently arise in motor accident claims: the evidentiary value of an Aadhaar Card for establishing the age of a claimant and the point at which an insurer’s contractual obligation commences. The court’s observations were made while disposing of a petition that sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic incident.

On the issue of age determination, the court noted that the Aadhaar Card, while a ubiquitous identity document, does not contain any intrinsic guarantee of the holder’s date of birth. The bench emphasised that the Unique Identification Authority of India issues the Aadhaar number based on demographic and biometric data submitted at enrolment, but the authority does not undertake an independent verification of the birth date supplied by the applicant. Consequently, the court held that reliance on an Aadhaar Card alone to prove a claimant’s minority or majority is insufficient for the purposes of assessing compensation, particularly where the quantum of relief may vary significantly depending on whether the victim is a child or an adult. The judgment reiterated that traditional documentary proof such as a birth certificate, school leaving certificate, or matriculation certificate remains the preferred mode of establishing age in judicial proceedings.

Turning to the question of insurer liability, the court clarified that the receipt of the premium by the insurance company does not, by itself, trigger the insurer’s responsibility to indemnify the claimant. The bench explained that a contract of insurance is governed by its express terms, and the risk underwritten by the insurer commences precisely on the date and time stipulated in the policy document. Therefore, even if the insured has paid the premium, coverage does not commence until the policy’s operative date arrives. The court warned against conflating payment of premium with the inception of risk, stating that such a conflation would undermine the principle of contractual certainty and could lead to unjust enrichment of claimants at the expense of insurers.

The judgment further elaborated that, in determining liability, courts must examine the policy schedule, the endorsement clauses, and any applicable statutory provisions that govern the commencement of coverage. The bench highlighted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the rules framed thereunder require the insurer to be liable only from the moment the policy becomes effective, and any claim arising prior to that moment falls outside the scope of indemnity. The court directed tribunals and lower courts to scrutinise the policy documents meticulously before fastening liability on the insurer.

These observations carry significant practical implications. For claimants, the decision reinforces the necessity of producing corroborative evidence of age when seeking compensation, especially in cases where the claimant’s age influences the assessment of loss of earning capacity, dependency, or medical expenses. For insurers, the ruling affirms that the mere collection of premium does not automatically extend coverage; insurers must ensure that the policy’s commencement date is clearly communicated and that any claim is evaluated against the temporal scope of the risk undertaken. Legal practitioners are advised to scrutinise both the identity documents tendered by claimants and the policy timelines when preparing or defending motor accident compensation claims.

In sum, the Chhattisgarh High Court’s pronouncement serves to sharpen the evidentiary standards for age proof and to clarify the temporal limits of insurer liability, thereby promoting greater predictability and fairness in the adjudication of motor accident compensation disputes.