### Multiplier of 18 applies to minors below 15 years for calculating motor accident compensation.

On February 25, 2011, the first respondent (a 11-year-old student) sustained grievous injuries, including traumatic paraplegia and 100% permanent disability, after being hit by a car driven by respondent No. 1

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 22,84,500 with 9% interest via an award dated August 1, 2013

The Insurance Company appealed this award, challenging the application of an '18' multiplier, the quantum of attendant charges, and the grant of interest on future medical expenses

1. Whether a multiplier of ‘18’ is applicable for a minor victim below the age of 15 years

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of attendant charges and non-pecuniary heads

3. Whether interest can be awarded on compensation related to future prospects and future medical expenses

The Court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates the award of "just compensation"

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Sarla Verma v. DTC regarding multiplier tables

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, which established that the multiplier system applies to attendant charges and that 24-hour care is essential for paraplegic victims

It further followed Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon to justify an '18' multiplier for minors

Regarding interest on future headers, it applied the principle from Oriental Insurance Co. v. Niru @ Niharika, holding that interest compensates for the delay in adjudication and disbursement

The Court rejected the appellant's plea to reduce the multiplier to '15', affirming that established Delhi High Court and Supreme Court precedents fix '18' as the appropriate multiplier for children under 15

In evaluating attendant charges, the Court found the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 150/day (totaling Rs. 9,72,000) to be conservative given the victim's 100% disability and lifelong need for a caregiver

Exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC, the Court enhanced these charges by applying the minimum wage for a 'skilled' worker (Rs. 7,826/month) as per 2011 Delhi Government notifications, resulting in an increased sum of Rs. 16,90,416

Finally, the Court dismissed the objection to interest on future medical expenses, reasoning that claimants are deprived of the use of funds during the pendency of litigation, necessitating interest from the date of filing until disbursement

The Court held that a multiplier of '18' is legally sound for an 11-year-old victim

and that interest at 9% p.a. is payable on the entire award, including future medical expenses

The appellant was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,18,416 with the Registry within four weeks