Notional income of minor deceased to be based on skilled worker's minimum wages with a multiplier of 18.

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged the award dated March 30, 2026, passed by the MACT, Dwarka Courts, which granted compensation of ₹26,76,000/- with 7.5% interest for the death of a 13-year-old child

The Appellant contested the use of minimum wages for a "skilled worker" and the application of a multiplier of 18 instead of 15 for a minor

During the proceedings, the Respondents (claimants) pointed out that the Tribunal had used an outdated minimum wage figure for Delhi (₹16,792/-) instead of the applicable rate for October 2022 (₹20,357/-)

1. Whether the notional income of a deceased minor below 15 years should be based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker and whether a multiplier of 18 is applicable.

2. Whether the Court can enhance compensation in favor of the claimants in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection.

The Court applied the principles established in Rubi Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2026:DHC:3674), which mandates using the minimum wages of a skilled worker and a multiplier of 18 for minors below 15 years

It relied on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari to affirm that minors cannot be treated as non-earning individuals

Regarding procedural limits, the Court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, which held that Tribunals must award "just compensation" regardless of the amount claimed or the absence of cross-objections

It also invoked Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC to justify enhancing relief in the absence of a cross-appeal

The Court rejected the Insurance Company's challenge, noting that settled law now dictates that for deceased minors, the income must be pegged to skilled minimum wages and a multiplier of 18

The Court observed that while the Tribunal correctly chose the "skilled worker" category, it erred in the factual application of the wage rate, using ₹16,792/- instead of the statutory ₹20,357/- applicable at the time of the accident

Despite the claimants not filing a cross-appeal, the Court held it had a statutory duty to ensure "just compensation"

Consequently, it applied the corrected wage rate (₹20,357/-), added 40% for future prospects, and deducted 1/2 for personal expenses to recalculate the loss of dependency

It held that the multiplier of 18 and skilled worker wages are mandatory for minors

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹5,39,028/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the petition within six weeks