$~33 & 34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3^rd February 2026 Date of uploading : 13^th February 2026 + MAC.APP. 196/2025, CM APPL. 17513/2025 & CM APPL.

49482/2025

34 + MAC.APP. 197/2025 & CM APPL. 17577/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv.

versus VISHNUDEV SAH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Ms Priyanka S.

Aneja & Ms Amita, Mr. Aakash Singh, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed challenging impugned judgements dated 9^th January 2025 and 10^th January 2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in 221/2021 and 223/2021, respectively, whereby Rs.8,67,000 was awarded at an interest of 7% p.a.

2. Briefly, the facts are that on 18.05.2019, respondent nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) were travelling from Gurugram to Madhubani, Bihar in a bus bearing registration no. UP-83-BT-4106 driven by respondent no.3/driver at very high speed. While driving the bus, respondent no.3/driver hit one tractor trolley loaded with watermelons from behind at about 4:30 a.m. when it was travelling in area of Ganj Muradabad on Agra-Lucknow Expressway at Bhangarmau, District Unnao, UP. Upon losing control, the bus turned turtle at the spot of incident resulting in severe injuries to the passengers travelling in it. After the incident, all injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Unnao, where Master Manish (in MAC.APP. 196/2025) and Master Nitesh (in MAC.APP. 197/2025) (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) expired during the treatment. Master Manish was aged about 12 years and Master Nitesh was aged about 14 years and both of them were students at the time of incident.

3. In their appeal, appellant/Insurance Company has relied upon Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto Alias Nemchand Mahto & Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 204 and Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2022) 1 SCC 317 to state that that the awarded amount of Rs.8,67,000/- is on the higher side and in terms of the judgments relied upon, the amount should be about Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. Further, as recorded by this Court on 27^th January 2026, where this Court recorded the submissions regarding application of multiplier of ‘15’ as awarded by MACT for the deceased who were below 15 years of age at the time of their death, which was objected to by counsel for claimants stating that this issue has been squarely covered by recent judgments of this Court. Further, minimum wages of an unskilled worker should have been taken as benchmark income by the MACT.

5. It is imperative to deal with the contentions raised by the appellant/Insurance Company. As regards the reliance placed on Meena Devi (supra), the Courts while assessing compensation awarded to a minor had ultimately concluded that ‘just compensation’ should be awarded, even if that means modifying the amount claimed for in the claim petition. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of facts and circumstances of that case. Moreover, the Courts in Kurvan Ansari (supra increased the notional income fixed at Rs. 15,000 p.a. by the Tribunal for non-earning members to Rs. 25,000. However, the adoption of notional income for deceased below 15 years, who were non-earning members has been discussed in a catena of judgments following the decision of Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 where benchmark income of an injured child was taken to be that of minimum wages earned by a skilled worker.

6. As regards the issue of multiplier for victims below the age of 15 years of age, factor of ‘18’ has been adopted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanju & Ors. in MAC.APP.30/2025 and other connected appeals [MAC.APP.39/2025, MAC.APP.40/2025, MAC.APP.751/2025 and MAC.APP.80/2025] where earlier decisions of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance G