Sangita vs Relience Gen Ins Co Ltd & Ors

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
% Date of decision:18 February, 2026

+ MAC.APP. 1004/2018
SANGITA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

versus
RELIENCE GEN INS CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy and Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT


ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT ’], Rohini Courts
(hereinafter, ‘ Tribunal ’) in Claim Petition No. 4955/16 awarding
th
Rs.8,14,000/- along with 9% interest vide award dated 10 March 2017
(hereinafter, ‘ impugned award ’)
th
2. The accident occurred on 07 April 2012 at about 07:30 p.m., when
the injured/ Sangita aged 9 years, travelling with Pooja on a motorcycle
driven by Kuldeep, were hit by the offending tractor driven by respondent
no.2/ Mohd. Samir (driver) coming from the wrong side. Injured/ Sangita
was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital , and thereafter, shifted
to Safdarjung Hospital where she remained hospitalized for five days. On
account of the accident, she suffered 61% permanent disability in relation
to her whole body and functional disability was taken at 55% by the
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 1 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

Tribunal.
3. Mr. Anshuman Bal , Counsel for appellant/claimant has preferred
this appeal on the grounds that firstly , non-pecuniary damages were
granted on the lesser side and were inadequate considering the injury;
secondly , loss of future earnings was calculated by taking notional income
of Rs.15,000/-, which was calculated based on the Second Schedule and
relying upon a decision of this Court in Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram ,
2016:DHC:3863 using the Inflation Correction Method , which should
otherwise have been taken as minimum wages of a skilled worker; thirdly ,
the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 10, whereas, a multiplier of 18
should have been taken considering that the appellant/claimant was a
minor child at the time of accident.
4. To support his contentions, Counsel for appellant/claimant has
relied upon decisions of Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand &
Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413, Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon ,
(2022) 8 SCC 489 and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738.

5. This position asserted by Counsel for appellant/claimant/minor
child is acceptable since a view has been taken by a Predecessor Bench of
this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanju & Ors.
2025:DHC:11781 and followed by this Court in Tata AIG General
Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. 2026:DHC:756 and in
subsequent judgments of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vishnudev Sah
& Ors. 2026:DHC:1266 and Rekha Devi & Anr. v. Bechan Yadav & Ors.
2026:DHC:805.
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 2 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

6. As regards, the issue of benchmark income, this Court in Sanju
( supra ) assessed Kajal ( supra ) and a line of judgments relying upon Kajal
to arrive at the conclusion that notional income in cases of fatal accidents
involving minors cannot be taken as static and minimum wages of a
skilled worker of the concerned state would have to be taken. Relevant
observations of the Court are extracted as under:
“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
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 3 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

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 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)

Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 4 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

7. Additionally, 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, Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244, in
detail.
8. Further, reliance was placed 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.
9. The 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-
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 5 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

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.
34. 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.
35. 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)

10. Taking a similar view, this Court in Mukesh Kumar (supra) , 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
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 6 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

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)
11. Therefore, in light of the above decisions, considering that the
minimum wages of a skilled worker in Delhi at that time of accident were
Rs. 8,528/- , the same shall have to be accounted for. Multiplier of 18,
instead of 10, shall be considered.
12. Future prospects will be awarded at 40%, considering that the
claimant was below 40 years of age, in line with the parameters provided
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 and
further relied upon by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v.
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari , 2025 INSC 1070, which dealt with an injury
claim of a minor child.
13. As regards non-pecuniary loss, the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 has stated in paragraph 6 as under:
“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 7 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity)

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life.”
(emphasis added)

14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of
studies , which shall not subsist in terms of the view taken by the Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar ( supra ).
15. Considering that she was young girl, non-pecuniary damages for
diminishing prospects of marriage may be enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- .
16. As far as the other non-pecuniary heads of losses are concerned, in
these circumstances, the Court considers it necessary to increase the non-
pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, which should be Rs. 1,50,000/-
and loss of enjoyment/expectation of life should be Rs. 2,00,000/- .
17. Mr. Rajeev M. Roy , Counsel for respondent no.1/Insurance
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 8 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

Company states that contributory negligence ought to have been
considered. However, no cross-appeal has been filed by respondent
no.1/Insurance Company and this aspect cannot be taken up merely on an
oral submission.
18. Revised computation, therefore, is as under:
Sr.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 11,481/- Rs. 11,481/-
2 Expenditure on conveyance
(B)
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
3 Expenditure on special diet
(C)
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
4. Income of injured (D) Rs. 15,000/-
(notional income)
Rs. 8,528/-
(per month)
5. Add: Future prospects @
40% (E)
- Rs. 3,411/-
6. Multiplier (F) 10 18
7 Functional disability (G) 55% 55%
8 Loss of future income/future
earnings [(D + E) x 12 x (F)
x G] = (H)
Rs. 2,12,356.50/- Rs. 14,18,353/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

9 Loss of studies Rs. 2,00,000/- -
10 Pain and suffering (I) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-
11 Loss of marriage prospects
(J)
Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
12 Loss of enjoyment of life (K) Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
13 Total compensation (A + B +
C + H + I + J + K) = L
Rs. 8,14,000/-
(Rs. 8,13,837.5
Rs. 20,70,000/-
(Rs. 20,69,834 rounded
rounded off)
off)
14 Interest awarded 9% 9%

19. Enhanced amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 9 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45

9% from the date of filing of petition will be deposited by respondent
no.1/Insurance Company before the Tribunal within 4 weeks.
20. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be
released to the claimant within a period of two weeks thereafter. The
remaining amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed
Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2
months, 3 months and so on, in succession as may be calculated. The
interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated
Savings Bank Account of the claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity
would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due
verification.
21. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
22. Appeal stands disposed of with above directions.
23. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
24. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 18, 2026/ mk/ sp
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 10 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
12:14:45