The court affirmed that a multiplier of 18 is applicable for minors' deaths in compensation claims, based on established precedents, rejecting arguments for a lower multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) for setting aside/modifying the final judgment and award dated 19^th May 2025 passed by Presiding Officer - MACT, South East District, Saket Court, Delhi in MACT No. 912/2019. The claim filed by the claimants (respondent nos. 1 and 2), on account of the death of Master Kannu Pal, was allowed by the Tribunal, and an award of Rs.16,25,894/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was passed.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company seeks modification of the award on the sole ground that the multiplier applied for the death of minor child, being 12 years of age, was taken as 18 instead of 15, which, according to appellant, is not in consonance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121 andNational Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

The Incident

3. On 17^th June 2019 at about 09.00 AM on Choganpur Road, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, two pedestrians namely Kannu Pal S/o Mukesh Kumar, aged 12 years and Ankush, aged 17 years were impacted by a speeding motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL 3S DG 4380 (hereinafter the ‘offending vehicle’) causing multiple injuries. Both of them succumbed to their injuries sustained in the accident. Claim petition under Section 166 and 140 MV Act was filed on 31^st October 2019 by Sh. Mukesh Kumar and Smt. Seema (claimants/parents of deceased) on account of fatal injuries sustained by Late Master Kannu Pal (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’).

4. Claimants alleged rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by Mr. Vineet Kumar (respondent no.3). The offending vehicle was owned by Mr. Pramod Kumar Lal (respondent no.4) and insured with the appellant.

Impugned Award

5. The appellant-Insurance Company conceded that the insurance policy was valid and effective but asserted that negligence of deceased children had caused the accident as they were casually strolling unaccompanied by any adult or guardian.

6. Those who stepped in the witness box were Mr. Mukesh Kumar/PW-1, the father of deceased and Mr. Lakahn Pal Singh/PW-2, the eyewitness, while no evidence was led by the respondents.

7. After assessing the respective contentions of the parties, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that offending vehicle was was being driven at a high speed, in a rash and reckless manner without exercising sufficient control, without adhering to basic lane discipline and caused the accident and death of two minor children.

Compensation Awarded

8. For determining the loss of dependency, considering the deceased was a minor, the Tribunal relied upon United India Insurance Company Limited v. Jamaluddin Khan and Ors. 2023:DHC:6242 decided by this Court on 25^th August 2023, which held that minimum wages of the area of residence of minor child would be the most reasonable benchmark. The minimum wages of a skilled person as notified in State of Uttar Pradesh was Rs.9,873/- as on the date of accident which was considered as the monthly income of the deceased and future prospects of 40% were added. A deduction of 50% was made on the basis of principles ofPranay Sethi (supra), considering the deceased was an unmarried individual towards personal and living expenses; multiplier was assessed at 18, however, no substantial discussion was provided for the same.

9. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,25,894/-, whereby compensation towards loss of