Delhi High Court – Orders
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Dinesh Kumar Dua on 25 May, 2026
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 642/2024
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Akash Gahlot, Proxy Counsel
versus
DINESH KUMAR DUA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Kanupriya Tyagi, Proxy Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 25.05.2026
Lawyers are abstaining from appearing in the Court today.
CM APPL. 36032/2026
1. This application seeks release of partial amount of compensation
granted by the impugned award dated 05th July 2024 passed by the MACT
Rohini Courts.
2. By order dated 09th December 2024, this Court issued notice directing
that the entire compensation be deposited by the insurance company before
the Registrar General of this Court. However, no orders for release were
passed.
3. As noted in the said order of 09th December 2024, the grounds for
challenge in the appeal are related to adoption of multiplier of 18 instead of
15 for a death of a minor, who was 7 years of age and benchmark income
being taken as minimum wages of a skilled worker.
4. The Court has already taken a view with respect to the issue of
adoption of multiplier in respect of the death of a minor, as well as the
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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
wages which are considered as notional income.
5. Court decisions, including National Insurance Company Ltd v.
Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781, Tata AIG General Insurance Company v.
Mukesh Kumar and Ors. 2026:DHC:756, have been comprehensively
considered by this Court in Rubi Devi and Anr. v. The New India
Assurance Com. Ltd. And Ors. 2026:DHC:3674; it has been held that the
multiplier ought to be ’18’ and the minimum wages of a skilled worker
ought to be considered in cases of minor. Relevant paragraphs 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 RsThis 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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
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 be 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 causeThis 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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
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
****
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.
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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
The discussion on this aspect in Bhupan Paswan reads
as follows:
“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
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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
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.”
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.”
(emphasis added)
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 isThis 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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
perfectly in order. There is no question of any
deduction 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……”
(emphasis added)
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
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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. At the time of accident minimum
wages of a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh were Rs. 7,085/-
per month; the same shall have to be accounted for.
Multiplier of 18, instead of 10, shall be considered.
(emphasis added)
6. These issues taken by the Insurance Company, therefore, are not
tenable. However, the appeal is kept pending for any other issue to be raised
by the insurance company.
7. In the meantime, the application for partial release is allowed,
considering there is no release order which has been granted.
8. Accordingly, 70% of the compensation is released in terms of
directions of the MACT in the impugned award.
9. Registry is directed accordingly.
10. Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 642/2024
1. List on 27th July 2026.
2. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
MAY 25, 2026/sm/bp
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 26/05/2026 at 21:44:19
