Delhi High Court – Orders
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sh. Braham Pal And Ors on 19 May, 2026
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 257/2026 & CM APPL. 24658/2026
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
SH. BRAHAM PAL AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 19.05.2026
1. This issue, as noted in order dated 29th April 2026, concerns the
parameters for adopting minimum wages of a ‘skilled worker’ in case of the
death of a minor child and the multiplier of ’18’ being adopted.
2. This Court, after having considered all the relevant decisions of the
Supreme Court, including Devendra Kumar Tripathi and Others v. The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2025 INSC 1429, has considered
these issues in the decision of Rubi Devi and Anr. v. The New India
Assurance Com. Ltd and Ors. 2026:DHC:3674, wherein it was concluded
that the multiplier to be adopted will be ’18’ and the minimum wages of a
skilled worker shall be considered. For ease of reference, relevant
paragraphs of Rubi Devi (supra) 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 followedThis 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 21:02:35
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 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
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 21:02:35
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
****
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)
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 21:02:35
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:
“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 byThis 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 21:02:35
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 ’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:
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 21:02:35
“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 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.”
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 21:02:35
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/-
per month; the same shall have to be accounted for.
Multiplier of 18, instead of 10, shall be considered.”
(emphasis added)
3. Accordingly, placing reliance on the aforesaid decision in Rubi Devi
(supra), no infirmity is found in the impugned award dated 15th January
2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01, North District,
Rohini Courts [“MACT”] in MACT No.914/2022 warranting interference by
this Court. The contentions raised by appellant/Insurance Company are,
accordingly, rejected.
4. The release of the awarded amount shall be effected in terms of the
directions contained in the impugned award dated 15th January 2026 passed
by the MACT.
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 21:02:35
5. Statutory deposit be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only if
6. the order of deposit has been complied with.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, are rendered as infructuous.
9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
MAY 19, 2026/MK/tk
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 21:02:35
