Delhi High Court – Orders
Indusind General Insurance Co. Ltd. … vs Seema Devi & Ors on 20 May, 2026
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 295/2026 & CM APPL. 29557/2026 CM APPL.
29558/2026, CM APPL. 29559/2026
INDUSIND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (FORMERLY
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar and Ms.
Sabhyata Sharma, Advs.
versus
SEEMA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 20.05.2026
1. This appeal has been filed assailing impugned award dated 20th January
2026 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT/Tribunal’],
North-West District, Rohini Courts, awarding compensation of
Rs.32,45,234/- along with interest at 9% per annum arising out of an accident
in which a minor child of 12 years, Master Sunil @ Ansul suffered fatal
injuries on 29th July 2023 after being hit by car bearing registration no. DL-
3C-CV-0381 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’), while crossing the road
towards Kanjhawala.
2. Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company,
contends that there was no proof of negligence of the offending vehicle and
merely on the basis that appellant/Insurance Company had given a legal offer
to settle the matter, MACT concluded the issue of negligence in favour of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
claimant stating that, “negligence has been admitted by respondent no.3/R3,
the evidence was closed”.
3. However, on a query by the Court, Mr. Mazumdar, counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company, confirms that neither was a written statement
filed nor was evidence led by appellant/Insurance Company.
4. Therefore, in the light of the fact that no rebuttal was provided by
appellant/Insurance Company in respect of the circumstances in which the
accident occurred, no material was available before the MACT, which would
allow them to examine the issue of contributory negligence, if at all, on the
part of the deceased minor child.
5. Moreover, considering the nature of the accident where the deceased
was crossing the road and the offending vehicle hit him, the issue would be
well covered under the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which is a factor for
assessment of the tort of negligence.
6. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon decision of this Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v Shehnaj Begum & Ors.
2026:DHC:3169 which applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor which states
that the burden to rebut the inference of negligence shifts on the defendant.
Proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry, therefore,
strict rules of procedure or evidence do not apply. The assessment of
negligence has to be conducted on the test of preponderance of probabilities.
Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under:
“Summarizing
38. From the above discussion relating to the nature of
inquiry before the Tribunal, the operation of the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur, and the applicable standard of proof, three
aspects emerge clearly.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
39. First, that the proceedings before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal are in nature of an inquiry and are not
hemmed in by rules of procedure or evidence. The Supreme
Court in Shila Datta (supra) [passages extracted in
paragraph 20 (a) above], has elaborated on this aspect.
Essentially, a claim under Section 165 of the MV Act, is
neither a suit nor an adversarial lis.
40. Tribunal holds an inquiry and makes an award to
determine compensation, which ought to be just and
reasonable. The procedure to be followed is summarised in
the best discretion of the Tribunal. It has the power under
Section 169 of MV Act to summon persons possessing special
knowledge of the matters relevant to the inquiry.
41. In Anita Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised
that fault may not be found merely because Tribunals do not
examine some of the best eyewitnesses, as in a criminal trial,
but should do their best to analyse the material placed on
record by the parties.
42. Having clearly sketched the contours of the procedure
undertaken by a Tribunal, it brings us to the second issue,
which is determination of negligence. The nature of the
accident and the basic facts surrounding the same are
presented before the Tribunal in the form of a DAR (Detailed
Accident Report), or through an FIR, or a recording in a
police diary, along with the claim for compensation. In order
to arrive at an assessment of negligence and, therefore,
consequential liability in tort law, the principle of res ipsa
loquitur, particularly in accident cases, is often brought into
play.
43. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur constitutes an exception to
the general rule that the burden of proving negligence lies
upon the claimant. The facts, “tell its own story” and “speak
for itself”. The fact of the accident itself sometimes
constitutes evidence of negligence. The principal function of
the maxim is to prevent injustice, that would be caused to a
plaintiff who would otherwise be compelled to prove the
precise cause of the accident and responsibility of the
defendant, when the facts are unknown to plaintiff but lie onlyThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
within the knowledge of defendant. The burden then shifts to
the defendant, who can, by leading evidence, rebut the
inference drawn by the Court based on the doctrine.
…
45. Therefore, for application of the principle, it must be
shown that the offending vehicle was under the management
of the defendant and that the accident was such that, in the
ordinary course of things, it would not have happened if those
who were in management had used proper care. Having
reached a reasonable inference based on the facts of the
accident and being presented with a defence raised by
defendants that they exercised care to avert foreseeable
harm, the issue before the Tribunal would be how to balance
the two aspects and what parameter is to be applied in
measuring this balance, or in assessing which side the scales
tilt.
46. This brings us to the third aspect, which is the test to be
applied. It is well settled that the test or the burden of proof
which applies is not that of beyond a reasonable doubt (as in
criminal cases), but on the test of preponderance of
probabilities.”
(emphasis added)
7. In this light of the matter, the plea raised by appellant/Insurance
Company cannot be accepted.
8. Challenge has also been raised to the grant of compensation in case of
a deceased minor by applying minimum wages of a skilled person, along with
adopting a multiplier of 18 and grant of 40% towards future prospects.
However, these parameters have been conclusively established in a series of
judgments by this Court and the Supreme Court.
9. This issue has now recently been decided by this court in Rubi Devi
and Anr. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. 2026:DHC:3674,
where, after assessing judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, this
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
Court held that minimum wages of a skilled worker, multiplier of 18 and 40%
towards future prospects will be considered in relation to death of a minor
child below 15 years of age. Relevant findings of the Court are extracted as
under:
“On notional income of a minor
10. As regards determination of benchmark income, this
Court in Sanju (supra), after examining the decision in Kajal
(supra) and the subsequent judgments that followed and
relied upon it, concluded that the notional income in cases
concerning fatal accidents of minor children cannot be
treated as a fixed or static figure. Instead, the appropriate
way to assess the income is on the basis of the minimum
wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State. The
relevant observations of the Court are reproduced below:
“10. The first of these cases was Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand, which was a case of injury inflicted upon a child
of 12 years of age. The Court computed loss of future
income on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled
worker, reasoning as follows:
“20. Both the courts below have held that since the
girl was a young child of 12 years only notional
income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into
consideration. We do not think this is a proper way
of assessing the future loss of income. This young
girl after studying could have worked and would
have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each
case has to be decided on its own evidence but
taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not
at all justified. The appellant has placed before us
material to show that the minimum wages payable
to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our
opinion, this would be the minimum amount which
she would have earned on becoming a major.
Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to beThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying
the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs
14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs
14,66,000.”
11. The judgment in Kajal was followed in Master Ayush v.
Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Minor Roopa v. The Divisional Manager, New India
Assurance Company Ltd., and Baby Sakshi Greola v.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon, which were all also cases where
minor victims had suffered debilitating injuries.
12. This line of judgments has recently been reiterated in
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, which
was once again an injury case. The Supreme Court held
therein as follows:
“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor
appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment
and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is
evident that the Courts below have failed to take into
account the monthly income of the appellant while
determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a
well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of
law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent
disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed
in the same category as a non-earning individual for the
purposes of assessing the amount of compensation
because the child was not engaged in gainful
employment at the time of the accident. In such a case,
the computation of compensation under the head of loss
of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very
least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman
as notified for the relevant period in the respective State
where the cause of action arises. The said observation
was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad
Simon and Anr
****This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified
here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal,
is concerned with the case involving a child having
suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation
of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the
matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in
the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our
hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors
and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court’s
interference, applying well-established principles of
law.”
On applicable multiplier for a minor
11. As regards the issue of multiplier, this Court in Sanju
(supra) assessed a line of judgments including Kajal (supra),
Master Ayush (supra) Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Karuna
Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244, which were
referred and assessed in detail.
12. Further, reliance was placed in Sanju (supra) 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.
13. Relevant observations made by this Court in Sanju
(supra) are extracted as under:
“26. In my view, the argument, at least before this
Court, 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:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
“31. The learned Tribunal has computed the
compensation by applying a multiplier of 15, by
considering the age of the deceased.
32. The calculation of Multiplier has been laid
down in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) as under:-
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to
be used should be as mentioned in column (4)
of the Table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to
20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit
for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to
40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13
for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units
for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55
years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to
65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
33. Evidently, the Judgment is silent on the
multiplier to be used for the victims under 15 years
of age. This incongruity in the matter of selection
of multiplier in the case of persons in the age group
up to 15 years was noted in by the Apex the case of
Divya vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil
Appeal No. 7605/2022.
In the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court
in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon
&Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018, while referring to
the judgments of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush
(supra), the Apex Court has applied the multiplier
of 18 for a minor.
Thus, in light of the above judgments, this Court
deems it appropriate to ascertain the Multiplier as
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
’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.”
14. Taking a similar view, this Court in Tata AIG General
Insurance Company v Mukesh Kumar and 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, 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.
23. In view of the above discussion, contention of
appellant cannot be accepted.”
15. Reliance placed by the counsel for the Insurance
Company on Thangavel and Ors. (supra) is misplaced, as the
Supreme Court has categorically opined in paragraph 6 that
the multiplier of 15 was adopted considering the age of the
mother of the deceased minor was who 36 years at the time
of the accident. The relevant paragraph is extracted as
under:
“6. We are of the opinion that the monthly income of
Rs.5,000/- as adopted for the child by the Tribunal is
perfectly in order. There is no question of any deductionThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
for personal expenses and hence even if the multiplier
adopted is 15, considering the mother’s age of 36, the
total compensation for loss of dependency would be
Rs.7,50,000/-, Rs.30,000 more than that awarded by the
Tribunal……”
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v.
Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, held that the multiplier is to
be used with reference to the age of the deceased. The
Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 affirmed the view
taken in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari
(supra), and recorded in the conclusions as under:
“59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.”
17. Therefore, multiplier of 15 adopted in Thangavel and
Ors. (supra) is as per age of mother of the deceased and not
that of the deceased.
18. As regards the argument raised by Mr. Paul, counsel for
Insurance Company, that different multipliers ought to be
applied in cases of death and injury, relying upon the
judgment of Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar Tripathi
(supra), this Court notes that post Kajal (supra), the Supreme
Court has taken a consistent view regarding the multiplier to
be applied in cases involving persons below 15 years of age.
19. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view
in multiple case including Jamaluddin (supra), Reena
Raghav (supra), Pooja (supra), Sanju (supra), and Mukesh
(supra), that a multiplier of 18 ought to be applied in cases
involving the death of a child below 15 years of age.”
…
32. Therefore, in light of the above decisions, the minimum
wages of a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh ought to be taken
as benchmark income, as the deceased was resident of
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. At the time of accident minimum
wages of a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh were Rs. 7,085/-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
per month; the same shall have to be accounted for.
Multiplier of 18, instead of 10, shall be considered.
33. Future prospects will be awarded at 40%, considering
that the claimant was below 40 years of age, in line with the
parameters provided in Pranay Sethi (supra).
(emphasis added)
10. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award
and the submissions made by counsel for appellant/Insurance Company are
rejected.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
12. Compensation amount awarded by the impugned award stands
confirmed and will be deposited before the MACT, along with accrued
interest. This amount will be released as per the directions provided by the
MACT.
13. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company.
14. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
15. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
MAY 20, 2026/MK/sp
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:28:12
