In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court to assail a judgment dated 03-08-2022 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi (MACT), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anish Dayal enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 11,81,252/- along with 9% interest per annum and directed New India Assurance Company Ltd. (NIACL) to deposit the differential amount before MACT within four weeks.
On 19-02-2018, the deceased, a minor, was playing with other children along the roadside and was hit by a truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner. She sustained grievous injuries and was taken to SRHC Hospital, where she was declared dead. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed regarding the incident. By the impugned judgment, the MACT awarded Rs. 5,60,000/- as compensation along with interest at 9% per annum. Relying upon Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram & Ors. [2016:DHC:3863], the notional income was assessed as Rs. 42,000/- per annum, and a multiplier of 10 was applied.
The appellant sought an assessment of the child’s income based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker and asserted that a multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 10, relying on Supreme Court judgments. It was also contended that the MACT had failed to add future prospects to the compensation amount despite the settled law.
Regarding the minor’s notional income, the Court stated that after examining the Supreme Court’s decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, it had concluded in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sanju & Ors. [2025:DHC:11781] that the notional income in cases of fatal accidents of minor children cannot be treated as a fixed or static figure, and that the income should be assessed based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State concerned.
Regarding the applicable multiplier for a minor, the Court referred to various decisions wherein a multiplier of 18 had been applied in cases of injury or death of a child below 15 years of age, such as Kajal (supra), Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738, Minor Roopa v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) 12 SCC 490, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad 2024 SCC OnLine 3692 SC, Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244, and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupan Paswan [SLP No. 17412/2025].
The Court stated that the application of the multiplier method is aimed at establishing a structured formula to determine the compensation by multiplying the annual loss of dependency by an appropriate factor based on the victim’s age. It was also said that there is no distinction in the application of the multiplier between cases of death and injury.
Hence, the Court found it evident that the application of a standardized multiplier was in consonance with awarding ‘just compensation’, and that the adoption of a separate multiplier for cases of death and injury was not envisaged by the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madam Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
It was noted that on the date of the accident, the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh was Rs. 7085/- per month, and it was stated that this amount should have been accounted for as the minor’s income. It was also stated that a multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 10. The Court said that future prospects were to be awarded at 40% with Rs. 80,000/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’, Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses, and Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate. It was also stated that, given that the deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 should have been deducted for personal expenses, not 1/3.
Thus, the awarded compensation was enhanced by Rs. 6,21,252/- along with interest at 9% per annum, and NIACL was directed to deposit the same before the MACT within 4 weeks.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauchan
For Respondents – Mr. Sahil Paul, Mr. Sandeep Dayal
