Delhi High Court
Rubi Devi And Anr vs The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. And Ors on 30 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 10th April 2026
Pronounced on: 30th April 2026
Uploaded on : 30th April 2026
+ MAC.APP. 397/2022
RUBI DEVI AND ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha
Chauchan, Advocates.
versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COM. LTD. AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sahil Paul & Mr. Sandeep
Dayal, Advocates for respondent
no.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the
deceased/Durga, assailing the judgment dated 03rd August 2022 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
(‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 306/2018.
2. The incident relates to an accident which occurred on 19 th February
2018 at about 8:00 AM, when Durga Kumari (‘deceased’) was playing
with other children along the roadside, i.e. service road near construction
site of Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd., Narela, Delhi and was suddenly
hit by the offending truck bearing registration no. KA-01-AD-9401,
allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 1 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
3. She sustained grievous injuries and was removed to SRHC Hospital,
where she was declared ‘brought dead’.
4. FIR No. 118/18 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at PS
Narela.
5. The Tribunal, vide impugned judgment dated 03rd August 2022,
awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/- along with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. The
Tribunal relied upon the dictum laid down by this Court in Chetan
Malhotra v. Lala Ram & Ors. 2016:DHC:3863 and assessed the notional
income at Rs. 42,000/- per annum (15,000 x 280 divided by 100). After
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 10,
pecuniary damages of Rs. 2,80,000/- were awarded along with Rs.
2,80,000/- towards composite non-pecuniary damages.
Submission on behalf of Appellants
6. Counsel for appellant assails the award primarily on following
grounds.
6.1. Firstly, the tribunal wrongly assessed the notional income at Rs.
42,000/- per annum. Mr. Maini submits that the issue with respect to
assessment of notional income of a minor child now stands settled by the
Supreme Court as well as this Court.
6.1.1. It is contended that in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413,
the Supreme Court categorically held that adoption of notional income at
Rs.15,000/- per annum is not proper way of assessing future loss of income
of a child, and the Court assessed the income on the basis of minimum
wages payable to a skilled worker.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 2 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
6.1.2. He further relies upon Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738, wherein the Supreme Court, while awarding
compensation to the parents on account injury suffered by five-year-old
child, followed and relied upon Kajal (supra) and reiterated that the
benchmark for determining notional income of a minor ought to be
minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. It is stated that similar
observations were made by the Supreme Court in Minor Roopa v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd (2024) 12 SCC 490.
6.1.3. He further relied on the judgment of this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reena Raghav 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6695, wherein
compensation for the death of a five-year-old girl child was computed by
adopting minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker. Similar view was
taken in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamaluddin & Ors.
2023:DHC:6242, and in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6526.
6.2. Secondly, Mr. Maini, counsel for appellant, submitted that the
multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied instead of 10. To substantiate
his argument, he relied upon the judgments of supreme Court in Kajal
(supra), Master Ayush (supra), Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad
2024 SCC Online 3692 SC and Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025
INSC 1244 and of this Court’s judgment in Reena Raghav (supra), and
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781.
6.3. Thirdly, he contended that the MACT failed to add future prospects,
despite the settled law. To support his contention, he relied upon Supreme
Court’s judgment in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) and in Karuna Parmar
(supra). In these cases, the Court assessed notional income on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 3 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
minimum wages payable to a skilled worker, added 40% towards future
prospects, and applied a multiplier of 18.
Submission on behalf of Respondent/Insurance Company
7. Mr. Sahil Paul, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1/Insurance Company, on the other hand, contends that:
7.1. Multiplier of 18 is ordinarily applied in cases where a minor child
has suffered injuries resulting in permanent disability, as the family has to
take care of the child throughout his/her life. He submits that in cases
involving the death of a minor child below 15 years, the settled judicial
approach has been to apply a lower multiplier, generally 15. He relied upon
Devendra Kumar Tripathi and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. 2025 INSC 1429, particularly on paragraph 6, which is extracted
as under:
“6. The facts in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) are quite
distinct from the present case. Here, the child died and
the claim of compensation by the parents would
definitely stand on a different footing from that of a claim
filed by a disabled child, destined to live the rest of
his/her life with a debilitating condition of mental
retardation and severe incontinence.”
7.2. He further relies on the following judgments in Thangavel and
Others v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited 2025 INSC 949, wherein the Supreme Court has
adopted a multiplier of 15 in case of death of a 10-year-old boy.
7.3. Reliance has also been placed on the following judgments:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 4 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
(i) Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and
Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5345 of 2019, decided
on 13.10.2022;
(ii) Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Another v. Shyam Kishore
Murmu and Another (2022) 1 SCC 317;
(iii) Rajendra Singh and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Others (2020) 7 SCC 256;
(iv) Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others (2014) 1 SCC 244;
and
(v) R.K. Malik and Anr. v. Kiran Pal and Others (2009) 14 SCC 1.
Submissions in rejoinder
8. In rebuttal, counsel for the appellant raised three aspects:
8.1. Firstly, there is no distinction between the multiplier to be adopted in
cases of death and injury. Moreover, it was contended that the judgment in
Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5
SCC 121, wherein the multiplier was standardised by the Supreme Court,
does not prescribe separate multipliers for death and injury cases.
8.2. Secondly, the judgment in Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) failed
to consider earlier precedents, including the Supreme Court’s Judgment in
Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244, wherein the multiplier
in cases of death of a child below 15 years has been taken as 18. Moreover,
he relies upon the judgement of this Court in Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupan Paswan 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1045 of
Delhi High Court, which was challenged before the Supreme Court, and the
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment, whereinSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 5 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
also the High Court had awarded multiplier of 18 in cases of death of a
child below 15 years.
8.3. Thirdly, it is was argued that the reasoning that a higher multiplier
ought to be applied in cases of injury, on the ground that the parents require
to care for the child throughout his/her lifetime, is flawed, since in case of
injury compensation is already awarded under multiple non-pecuniary
heads for the same consideration.
Analysis
9. Having heard the submissions of counsels for parties and perused the
judgments relied upon by them, this Court is of the view that contentions
raised by the counsel for the parties effectively boil down to two issues,
which are discussed 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 onlySignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 6 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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 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-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 7 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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
****
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.”
(emphasis added)
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 8 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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:
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 9 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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
’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)
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 paragraphSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 10 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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 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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 11 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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.
20. For ease of reference, a tabulation of cases wherein a multiplier of
’18’ has been applied in cases of injury or death involving a child below 15
years is as follows:
Sr. no. Cases Death/injury Date of decision
Supreme Court
1. Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. (2020) 4 Injury 05.02.2020
SCC 413
2. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Injury 29.03.2022
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738
3. Minor Roopa v. New India Assurance Co. Injury 03.08.2022
Ltd (2024) 12 SCC 490
4. Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Injury 11.12.2024
2024 SCC Online 3692 SC
5. Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 Death 11.02.2025
INSC 1244Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 12 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
6. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Death SLP filed by
Co. Ltd. v. Bhupan Paswan SLP Insurance
No.17412/2025 Company was
dismissed on
14.07.2025
Delhi High Court
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Death 25.08.2025
Jamaluddin & Ors. 2023:DHC:6242
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reena Death 16.10.2023
Raghav 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6695
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja 2025 Death 21.02.2025
SCC OnLine Del 1044,
4. National Insurance Company Ltd v. Sanju Death 20.12.2025
& Ors. 2025:DHC:11781
5. Tata AIG General Insurance Company v Death 29.01.2026
Mukesh Kumar and Ors. 2026:DHC:756
21. Moreover, in Sarla Verma (supra), no separate multipliers have been
prescribed for cases of death and injury. For this, it is necessary to
understand the rationale behind the introduction of the multiplier system.
22. In this regard, it is necessary to trace back the origin of multiplier.
Recognition of this principle was made in Madhya Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar & Ors. (1977) 3
SCC 64, the Court, while referring to an English decision in Mallet v.
McMonagle [1970] A.C. 166, wherein the significance and scope of this
principle was emphasised in the following terms:
“4. A method of assessing damages, usually followed in
England, as appears from Mallet v. McMonagle, is to
calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and
to “arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure
assessed as the amount of the annual ‘dependency’ by a
number of ‘year’s purchase’, (p. 178) that is, the numberSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 13 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into
consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either
the multiplier or the multiplicand. The husband may not
be dependant on the wife’s income, the basis of assessing
the damages payable to the husband for the death of his
wife would be similar. Here, the lady had 35 years of
service before her when she died. We have found that the
claimant’s loss reasonably works out to Rs 50 a month i.e.
Rs 600 a year. Keeping in mind all the relevant facts and
contingencies and taking 20 as the suitable multiplier, the
figure comes to Rs 12,000. The Tribunal’s award cannot
therefore be challenged as too low though it was not
based on proper grounds. In a decision of the Kerala
High Court relied on by the appellant to which one of us
was a party, the same method of assessing compensation
was adopted.”
(emphasis added)
23. The Supreme Court, in the case of U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362, justified
the application of multiplier method in the following manner:
“13. It was rightly clarified that there should be no
departure from the multiplier method on the ground that
Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding
to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation
since the multiplier method is the accepted method for
determining and ensuring payment of just compensation
and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the
award made all over the country.”
(emphasis added)
24. In General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas 1994
SCC (2) 176, the Supreme Court held that multiplier is based on the
deceased’s age and not on the age of the dependents and set a maximum
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 14 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
multiplier limit. The Court also held multiplier method is logically sound
and legally well established and recorded as under:
“16. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method
is logically sound and legally well-established. There are
some cases which have proceeded to determine the
compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire
future earnings for over the period the life expectancy
was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards
uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as
compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if
the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death
and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would
multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years virtually
adopting a multiplier of 45 and even if one-third or one-
fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of
future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the
effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is
wholly impermissible. We are, aware that some decisions
of the High Courts and of this Court as well have arrived
at compensation on some such basis. These decisions
cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They
are merely instances of particular awards in individual
cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier,
method. Any departure, except in exceptional and
extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of
principle, lack of uniformity and an element of
unpredictability for the assessment of compensation.
Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a
departure from the multiplier method on the ground that
Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as
it envisages the compensation to be ‘just’, the statutory
determination of a ‘just’ compensation would unshackle
the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in
mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of
ensuring a ‘just’ compensation which will make for
uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove
these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a
contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 15 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
the appropriate method, a departure from which can only
be justified ill rare and extraordinary circumstances and
very exceptional cases.”
(emphasis added)
25. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court standardised the
application of multiplier.
26. Reference may also be made to Reshma Kumari (supra), wherein
the Court, while endorsing the principles laid down in Sarla Verma
(supra), advocated for a standardized application of multipliers to ensure
consistency and fairness in the award of compensation.
27. The Court in Reshma Kumari (supra) emphasized on
standardisation introduced in Sarla Verma (supra) to reduce
inconsistencies and arbitrariness in compensation awards. The Court also
underlined the need to align multipliers with Indian economic realities.
28. Accordingly, it can be noted that the application of the multiplier
method is aimed at establishing a structured formula for determining
compensation by multiplying the annual loss of dependency or
multiplicand with an appropriate factor or multiplier based on the age of the
victim. Moreover, there is no distinction in the application of the multiplier
between cases of death and injury. The objective is to standardise the
assessment of compensation by applying a fixed multiplier for victims
within the same age group, rather than making the process complex.
29. It is noted that judgment in Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) does
not advert to earlier judgments of the Supreme Court wherein the multiplier
of 18 has been applied even in cases of death. Therefore, it is possible that
the attention of the Supreme Court was not drawn to this aspect.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 16 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
30. Taking into account the discussion above, the following aspects are
quite evident:
30.1. Firstly, application of a standardised multiplier is in consonance with
awarding ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act;
30.2. Secondly, adoption of separate multiplier in case of injury and death
was not envisaged by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in
Reshma Kumari (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra);
30.3. Thirdly, the Supreme Court in its various decisions has applied
minimum wages of skilled worker, along with future prospect at 40% and a
multiplier of 18, in case a minor below 15 years of age;
30.4. Fourthly, this Court has also remained consistent in adoption of
these three elements for a minor; and
30.5. Fifthly, this Court concurs with the submission of Mr. Maini that, in
cases of injury, compensation is awarded under various non-pecuniary
heads also, so as to adequately balance the loss suffered by the injured,
unlike in a death case.
31. Considering the discussion above, this Court is of the view that
multiplier of ’18’ ought to be applied instead of multiplier of ’10’, as
applied by the MACT.
Conclusion
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 17 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
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).
34. A lump-sum amount of non-pecuniary damages have been awarded
to the claimants, which need to be aligned with the principles enunciated in
Pranay Sethi (supra) by the Supreme Court, as under:
(i) There are two family members/claimants and, therefore, loss of
consortium would be Rs. 40,000/- X 2 = Rs. 80,000/-
(ii) Funeral expenses ought to be Rs. 15,000/-.
(iii) Loss of estate ought to be Rs. 15,000/-.
35. As per the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/2 ought
to be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3, since the deceased
was a bachelor.
36. The revised computation, therefore, is provided as under:
S. No. Heads of compensation Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1 Annual Income of deceased (A) Rs. 42,000 Rs. 7,085/- x 12 =
(less Income Tax) Rs. 85,020
2 Add Future Prospects (B) – 40% of Rs. 85,020 =
Rs. 34,008/-
3 Less Personal expenses of the 1/3 of Rs. 42,000/- 1/2 of 1,19,028/- =
deceased (C) = Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 59,514/-
4 Annual loss of dependency [(A Rs. 28,000/- Rs. 59,514/-
+B)-C = D]
5 Multiplier (E) 10 18
6 Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 2,80,000/- Rs. 10,71,252/-
= F)
7 Non-pecuniary damages (G) 2,80,000/- -
8 Compensation for loss of - 40,000 x 2 = Rs.
consortium (H) 80,000/-
9 Compensation for loss of estate (I) - Rs. 15,000/-
10 Compensation towards funeral - Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (J)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 18 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
11 Total compensation Rs. 5,60,000/- Rs. 11,81,252/-
(F+G+H+I+J = L)
12 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum
37. Enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,21,252/-, along with
accrued interest, will be deposited by respondent no.1/Insurance Company
before the Tribunal within 4 weeks and shall be disbursed as per the
directions of the MACT in the impugned award.
38. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
39. Appeal stands disposed of with above directions.
40. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
41. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 30, 2026/sm/bp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 397/2022 Page 19 of 19
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:20:04
