Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 3rd February 2026
Date of uploading : 13th February 2026
49482/2025
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv.
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Ms Priyanka S.
Aneja & Ms Amita, Mr. Aakash Singh, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed challenging impugned judgements dated 9th January 2025 and 10th January 2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in 221/2021 and 223/2021, respectively, whereby Rs.8,67,000 was awarded at an interest of 7% p.a.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 18.05.2019, respondent nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) were travelling from Gurugram to Madhubani, MAC.APP. 196/2025& MAC.APP. 197/2025 2 of 8 Bihar in a bus bearing registration no. UP-83-BT-4106 driven by respondent no.3/driver at very high speed. While driving the bus, respondent no.3/driver hit one tractor trolley loaded with watermelons from behind at about 4:30 a.m. when it was travelling in area of Ganj Muradabad on Agra-Lucknow Expressway at Bhangarmau, District Unnao, UP. Upon losing control, the bus turned turtle at the spot of incident resulting in severe injuries to the passengers travelling in it. After the incident, all injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Unnao, where Master Manish (in MAC.APP. 196/2025) and Master Nitesh (in MAC.APP. 197/2025) (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) expired during the treatment. Master Manish was aged about 12 years and Master Nitesh was aged about 14 years and both of them were students at the time of incident.
3. In their appeal, appellant/Insurance Company has relied upon Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto Alias Nemchand Mahto & Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 204 and Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2022) 1 SCC 317 to state that that the awarded amount of Rs.8,67,000/- is on the higher side and in terms of the judgments relied upon, the amount should be about Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. Further, as recorded by this Court on 27th January 2026, where this Court recorded the submissions regarding application of multiplier of ‘15’ as awarded by MACT for the deceased who were below 15 years of age at the time of their death, which was objected to by counsel for claimants stating that this issue has been squarely covered by recent judgments of this Court. Further, minimum wages of an unskilled worker should have been taken as benchmark income by the MACT.
5. It is imperative to deal with the contentions raised by the MAC.APP. 196/2025& MAC.APP. 197/2025 3 of 8 appellant/Insurance Company. As regards the reliance placed on Meena Devi (supra), the Courts while assessing compensation awarded to a minor had ultimately concluded that ‘just compensation’ should be awarded, even if that means modifying the amount claimed for in the claim petition. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of facts and circumstances of that case. Moreover, the Courts in Kurvan Ansari (supra) increased the notional income fixed at Rs. 15,000 p.a. by the Tribunal for non-earning members to Rs. 25,000. However, the adoption of notional income for deceased below 15 years, who were non-earning members has been discussed in a catena of judgments following the decision of Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 where benchmark income of an injured child was taken to be that of minimum wages earned by a skilled worker.
6. As regards the issue of multiplier for victims below the age of 15 years of age, factor of ‘18’ has been adopted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanju & Ors. in MAC.APP.30/2025 and other connected appeals [MAC.APP.39/2025, MAC.APP.40/2025, MAC.APP.751/2025 and MAC.APP.80/2025] where earlier decisions of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244 have been referred and assessed in detail.
7. Further, reliance has been placed upon decisions by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1044, Rakesh Sharma v. Ashok 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1364 and Cholamandalam MS MAC.APP. 196/2025& MAC.APP. 197/2025 4 of 8 General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupan Paswan 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1045, wherein a multiplier of 18 was adopted after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court.
8. The relevant observations made by this Court in Sanju (supra) are extracted as under:
MAC.APP. 196/2025& MAC.APP. 197/2025 5 of 8 Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra), the Apex Court has applied the multiplier of 18 for a minor.
35. Thus, in light of the above judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to ascertain the Multiplier as ‘18’ to calculate the loss of dependency is calculated accordingly.” As noted above, the Supreme Court declined special leave to appeal against this judgment.
27. Having regard to the binding judgment of the Coordinate Bench, which considers Sarla Verma, I am of the view that the applicable multiplier in such cases would be 18.” (emphasis added)
9. As regards the issue of minimum wages of an unskilled worker to be taken as benchmark income, this Court in Sanju (supra) by giving a detailed reasoning, held as under: “21… I am of the view that, even in the case of a fatal accident involving a minor child, the notional income for the purposes of loss of dependency would be computed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker in the concerned State.”
10. Taking a similar view, this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. MAC.APP. 560/2025, while dealing with an appeal filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Tribunal while assessing loss of dependency in case of death of a minor child had erred by taking the multiplier of 18, instead of 15, and that income of the deceased should either be determined on the basis of notional income or that of an unskilled worker, dismissed the said appeal and held as under: “22.[6] Analysing all these decisions, this Court in Sanju (supra) held the view, as extracted above in paragraph 14, that the applicable multiplier would be 18 and that minimum wages of a skilled worker of the concerned State would be applicable. MAC.APP. 196/2025& MAC.APP. 197/2025 6 of 8
23. In view of the above discussion, contention of appellant cannot be accepted.” (emphasis added)
11. Considering that the deceased were residents of Haryana, the minimum wages of a skilled worker in Haryana as per notification dated 01st January, 2019 issued by Labour Department, Haryana would have been Rs. 10,219 per month.
12. Further, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 followed in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, future prospects should be awarded at 40%, loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium should be Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- since there were two parents. Personal expenses should be deducted @ 50% in light of the decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780, which held that 50% has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses for a bachelor.
13. In light of above discussion, both these appeals stand dismissed and revised computation is as under:
11 Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 4,33,500/- Rs. 15,000/- 12 Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) - Rs. 15,000/-
14. Therefore, in view of the above, compensation awarded to deceased is enhanced to Rs. 16,55,156/- in both of these appeals.
15. Compensation awarded by the MACT, along with the enhanced compensation amount be deposited by the Insurance Company, if not already deposited, along with accrued interest, within a period of four weeks from today before the MACT. The said amount shall be disbursed upon verification as per directions given by the MACT in the impugned award and further directions to be given by the MACT for disbursement of enhanced amount.
16. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
17. List before the MACT on 16th March, 2026
18. Statutory deposit be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. MAC.APP. 196/2025& MAC.APP. 197/2025 8 of 8
19. Therefore, in view of the above directions, both these appeals stand dismissed.
20. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 3, 2026/sm/sp