Holding

The Court held that the School Leaving Certificate is the authoritative proof of age, not the Aadhaar Card, and that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation; the correct award is Rs 15 lakhs with 8% interest.

Summary

The deceased Silak Ram died in a motorcycle accident on 4 August 2015. His family filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) which awarded Rs 19,35,400 with 7.5% interest. The Punjab & Haryana High Court reduced the award to Rs 9,22,336, relying on the deceased’s age as 47 years derived from his Aadhaar card and using the minimum‑wage rate for notional income. The appellants contested the reduction, arguing that the School Leaving Certificate showing a birth date of 7 October 1970 (age 45) should govern, entitling them to a higher multiplier and a higher interest rate. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, a School Leaving Certificate is a statutorily recognised proof of age and that the Aadhaar card is not per se proof of date of birth, as affirmed by UIDAI Circular No. 08 of 2023. Consequently, the Court found the High Court’s reduction erroneous, restored the MACT’s determination of age, enhanced the interest to 8%, and ordered a total compensation of Rs 15 lakhs. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

In case of conflict between a School Leaving Certificate and an Aadhaar Card, which document is authoritative for determining a person’s date of birth?
Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified and in accordance with law.

Legislation cited

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015s. 94(2)

Subjects

Aadhar CardSuitability of Aadhar Card as proof of ageSchool leaving certificateProof of date of birthDate of birthUnique Identification Authority of IndiaCircular No.08 of 2023Establish identityJudicial noticeMotor accidentCompensationInterestMinimum wage rateMultiplier of 13Multiplier of 14Appellate proceedingsNotional incomeJust and reasonableEnhance rate of interest

Judgment

[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: dirl.auth-hq@uidai.net.in
…”
(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