Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Neelam And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~27 & 28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 May 2026
+ MAC.APP. 475/2025 & CM APPL. 46390/2025
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD......Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate.
versus
NEELAM AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for R1 &
R2(through VC).
(28)
+ MAC.APP. 209/2026
NEELAM AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate (through
VC).
versus
NABAB ALI AND ORS (ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These cross-appeals have been filed challenging the impugned award
th
dated 4 April 2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East
District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘ MACT ’) in MACP No.529/2023,
awarding compensation of Rs.23,03,490 /- along with interest @ 7.5% per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 1 of 10
annum. While MAC.APP. 475/2025 has been filed by the Insurance
Company seeking reduction of compensation, MAC.APP. 209/2026 has been
filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
th
2. The accident occurred on 13 July 2023 at about 03:15 a.m., when
deceased was bringing Holy Kavar towards his home in Delhi on foot. When
he reached in front of Jhilmil Dhaba , New Highway, a truck bearing
registration No.UP-21CT-0427, driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently
in a zig-zag manner, hit Deepanshu ( deceased ) from the backside with great
force and caused fatal injuries.
3. The challenge in the petition relates to compensation in respect of the
death of a minor child, who was 11 and a half years old at the time of the
accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker applicable in Delhi
were considered as the benchmark income, and a multiplier of 15 was applied.
4. In most judgments, including National Insurance Company Ltd v.
Sanju & Ors . 2025:DHC:11781, Tata AIG General Insurance Company v.
Mukesh Kumar and Ors. 2026:DHC:756, which 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. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 2 of 10
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 3 of 10
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.”
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 4 of 10
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 5 of 10
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.”
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 6 of 10
(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
(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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 7 of 10
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)
5. The minimum wages of a skilled worker on the date of the accident
were Rs. 20,903/- , which, along with future prospects at 40 %, application of a
multiplier of 18, and deduction of one-half towards personal expenses, would
amount to Rs. 31,60,533/-.
6. The rest of the compensation towards loss of consortium will be
Rs.96,000/-, funeral expenses will be Rs.18,000 /- and loss of estate will be
Rs.18,000 /-. The total compensation will amount to Rs.32,92,533 /- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
7. Compensation is re-computed as under:
Sr.
No.
Heads Awarded by
the Tribunal
Awarded by the
Court
1. Monthly income of the
deceased (A)
Rs. 17,234/- Rs. 20,903/-
2. Add-Future Prospects (B)
40%
40% of Rs. 20,903 =
Rs. 8,361.20/-
3. Less-personal expenses of
the deceased (C)
Rs. 12,038/-
1/2 of Rs.
29,264.20/- = Rs.
14,632.10/-
4. Annual loss of dependency
[(A+B) - C ] x 12= D]
Rs. 1,44,456
Rs. 1,75,585.20/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 8 of 10
5. Multiplier (E) 15 18
6.
21,71,490/-
Rs. 31,60,533.60
(rounded to
Rs. 31,60,534/-)
7. Compensation for loss of
love and affection (G)
Total loss of dependency (D
x E) = (F)
NIL
NIL
8. Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
Rs. 96,000/- Rs. 96,000/-
9. Compensation for loss of
estate (I)
Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/-
10. Compensation towards
funeral expenses (J)
Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/-
11. Total Compensation
(F+G+H+I+J = K)
Rs.
23,03,490/-
Rs. 32,92,534/-
12.
7.5% per
annum
7.5% per annum
Interest Awarded
13. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 9,89,044/-
th
8. By Order dated 25 August 2025, the Court had directed the appellant
to deposit 75% of the awarded amount, subject to which the enforcement was
stayed, and directed the release of the entire amount as per the directions of
the MACT.
th
9. On 17 November 2025, the Court noted that the MACT has not passed
any direction with respect to apportionment or formulated a scheme for
disbursement, and accordingly, directed the Tribunal to do so. Further, the
amount deposited before this Court was also directed to be transferred to the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District, Karkardooma Courts, so that
appropriate directions can be passed by the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance
amount as per the revised compensation, along with accrued interest, before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 9 of 10
the MACT within a period of six weeks, which shall be released as per the
directions of MACT in the impugned award.
11. Enhanced amount, along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of
filing the petition, shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four
weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimant from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period
of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued
interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) of Rs. 25,000/- each
for periods of 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and so on, in succession as
maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the
designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon
due verification.
12. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of with above directions.
13. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
14. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.
15. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.
16. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to Insurance Company, only
if the order of deposit has been complied with.
17. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
May 19, 2026/ ak/bp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:21.05.2026
12:04:54
MAC.APP. 475/2025 & MAC.APP. 209/2026 Page 10 of 10