Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th January 2026
REKHA DEVI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Sakshi Singh, Mr. Tushar Batra and Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi and Ms. Jigyasa Parashar, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 25th October 2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], South-West District, Dwarka Courts in MACT No.733/2023 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded as Rs. 13,50,260/- at an interest of 7.5% p.a.
2. The incident relates to an accident which occurred on 13th July 2018, wherein one Kunal Ram/deceased, aged ten years, while riding a bicycle along with his younger brother in Madhepura, Bihar, was hit by a tractor coming from the wrong side. The deceased was rushed to Primary Health Centre, Singheshwar by villagers but was declared 'brought dead' and MAC.APP. 5/2026 2 of 6 postmortem report of deceased was prepared recording cause of death as - ‘CR failure due to neurogenic shock as a result of trauma (injuries) caused by hard, blunt & heavy substance.’
3. On 07th January 2026, this Court had recorded the broad submissions of parties in this case. Time had been granted to counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company to revert on the submissions made regarding issue of multiplier for victims below the age of 15 years of age.
4. As regards this issue, 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.
5. 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 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.
6. The relevant observations made by this Court in Sanju (supra) are extracted as under: “26. In my view, the argument, at least before this Court, MAC.APP. 5/2026 3 of 6 is foreclosed by the judgments in Pooja, Rakesh Sharma, and Bhupan Paswan, where the multiplier 18 has been adopted after considering the judgments in Sarla Verma, Kajal, Master Ayush, and Sakshi Greola. The discussion on this aspect in Bhupan Paswan reads as follows:
MAC.APP. 5/2026 4 of 6 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)
7. Taking a similar view, this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. 2026:DHC:756, 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, 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.
23. In view of the above discussion, contention of appellant cannot be accepted.” (emphasis added)
8. Accordingly, the multiplier of 18 will be effected and award shall be recomputed as under: MAC.APP. 5/2026 5 of 6
4 Monthly loss of dependency [(A +B)-C = D] Rs. 6,762/- Rs. 6,762/- 5 Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 81,144/- Rs. 81,144/- 6 Multiplier (E) 15 18 7 Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs. 12,17,160/- Rs. 14,60,592 8 Medical expenses (G) Nil Nil 9 Compensation for loss of consortium (H) (48,400x[2]) Rs. 96,800/- Rs. 96,800/- 10 Compensation for loss of love and affection (I) Nil Nil
11 Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/- 12 Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/- 13 Total compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs. 13,50,260 Rs. 15,93,692/- 14 Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
10. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
11. Enhanced compensation amount, as computed above, along with proportionate interest, shall be deposited before the MACT within 4 weeks. Directions regarding release of enhanced amount shall be given by MACT. MAC.APP. 5/2026 6 of 6
12. List before MACT on 23rd February, 2026.
13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
14. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
15. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 30, 2026/mk/sp