Delhi High Court – Orders
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Vinay Jain & Ors on 19 May, 2026
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 510/2024
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kanwar Kocchar, Advocate.
versus
VINAY JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Honey Jain,
Mr. Ashish Batra, Mr. Abheer
Shawdilya, Ms. Anshika Juneja, Mr.
Devansh Khatter, Advocates for
Respondent no.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 19.05.2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing
impugned judgment dated 9th July 2024 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT
No. 371/2022, which awarded compensation of Rs.17,95,672/- along with
interest of 9% per annum, in respect of an accident which occurred on 26th
January 2022 when Baby Aradhya Jain (deceased) along with her
father/respondent no.1 and other persons was returning home by car and was
hit by a truck bearing registration no.UP-15AT-0876 (hereinafter,
‘offending vehicle’) being driven in a rash and negligent manner, near Big
Bite Hotel at NH-58, Meerut.
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 21:04:08
2. In this appeal, the issue canvassed by the Insurance Company relates
to the adoption of multiplier of ’18’ and minimum wages of a skilled worker
while calculating compensation in relation to the death of a minor child,
aged 3 years.
3. This issue has now 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 Court
held that minimum wages of a skilled worker and multiplier of 18 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 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 21:04:08
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 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 theThis 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 21:04:08
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
****
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.
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 21:04:08
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:
“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
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 21:04:08
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
’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.”
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 21:04:08
(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 is
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
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 21:04:08
(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/-
per month; the same shall have to be accounted for.
Multiplier of 18, instead of 10, shall be considered.
(emphasis added)
4. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned
award and the submissions made by counsel for appellant/Insurance
Company are rejected.
5. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications are
rendered infructuous.
6. By order dated 24th September 2024, this Court had directed deposit
of entire compensation amount, along with accrued interest, before the
Registrar General of this Court, subject to which, stay on the operation of
the impugned award was granted and the deposited amount was kept in an
interest-bearing FDR. On 18th December 2024, the Court directed release of
50% of the deposited amount in favour of claimant in terms of the impugned
award.
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 21:04:08
7. Accordingly, balance 50% compensation along with accrued interest
will also be released to the claimant in accordance with the directions of the
MACT in the impugned award.
8. Statutory deposit be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only if
the order of deposit has been complied with.
9. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
MAY 19, 2026/ak/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 21:04:08
