In cases of minor fatalities, compensation must be calculated by adopting the minimum wage of a skilled worker, adding 40% for future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 18, ensuring standardized and just compensation across all such claims.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168 - Compensation for death of minor - Determination of notional income - Minimum wages of skilled worker - Applicability of multiplier for children - Future prospects - Principles for just compensation.

(B) The multiplier method is logically sound and established to ensure uniformity and certainty in determining just compensation. There is no distinction in the application of the multiplier between cases of death and injury for minor children. Standardised judicial precedent mandates the use of a multiplier of 18 and the consideration of skilled worker minimum wages with appropriate additions for future prospects in cases involving victims below 15 years of age. (Paras 16, 24, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
Legal representatives of a deceased minor child challenged the compensation awarded by the tribunal, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the notional income was undervalued and the multiplier applied was incorrect given the established legal position concerning minor fatalities.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the tribunal erred in its assessment. Consistent with binding precedents, the compensation must reflect minimum wages for skilled workers, incorporate future prospects at 40%, and apply a multiplier of 18, regardless of whether the case involves fatal outcomes or injuries.

Issues: Whether the tribunal correctly assessed the notional income and applied the appropriate multiplier for the death of a minor, and whether the claim for future prospects was sustainable under the law.

Ratio Decidendi: To ensure just compensation, the court must standardise the assessment by aligning with the minimum wage of a skilled worker and applying a multiplier of 18, providing consistency and preventing the arbitrary undervaluation of lives of minor children.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased/Durga, assailing the judgment dated 03rd August 2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 306/2018.

2. The incident relates to an accident which occurred on 19th February 2018 at about 8:00 AM, when Durga Kumari (‘deceased’) was playing with other children along the roadside, i.e. service road near construction site of Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd., Narela, Delhi and was suddenly hit by the offending truck bearing registration no. KA-01-AD-9401, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.2.

3. She sustained grievous injuries and was removed to SRHC Hospital, where she was declared ‘brought dead’.

4. FIR No. 118/18 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Narela.

5. The Tribunal, vide impugned judgment dated 03rd August 2022, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. The Tribunal relied upon the dictum laid down by this Court in Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram & Ors. 2016:DHC:3863 and assessed the notional income at Rs. 42,000/- per annum (15,000 x 280 divided by 100). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 10, pecuniary damages of Rs. 2,80,000/- were awarded along with Rs. 2,80,000/- towards composite non-pecuniary damages.

Submission on behalf of Appellants

6. Counsel for appellant assails the award primarily on following grounds.

6.1. Firstly, the tribunal wrongly assessed the notional income at Rs. 42,000/- per annum. Mr. Maini submits that the issue with respect to assessment of notional income of a minor child now stands settled by the Supreme Court as well as this Court.

6.1.1. It is contended that in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Supreme Court categorically held that adoption of notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum is not proper way of assessing future loss of income of a child, and the Court assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker.

6.1.2. He further relies upon Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738, wherein the Supreme Court, while awarding compensation to the parents on account injury suffered by five-year-old child, followed and relied upon Kajal (supra) and reiterated that the benchmark for determining notional income of a minor ought to be minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. It is stated that similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in Minor Roopa v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (2024) 12 SCC 490.

6.1.3. He further relied on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reena Raghav 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6695, wherein compensation for the death of a five-year-old girl child was computed by adopting minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker. Similar view was taken in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamaluddin & Ors. 2023:DHC:6242, and in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6526.

6.2. Secondly, Mr. Maini, counsel for appellant, submitted that the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied instead of 10. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgments of supreme Court in Kajal (supra), Master Ayush (supra), Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad 2024 SCC Online 3692 SC and Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244 and of this Court’s judgment in Reena Raghav (supra), and National Insurance Company Ltd v. Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781.

6.3. Thirdly, he contended that the MACT failed to add future prospects, despite the settled law. To support his contention, he relied upon Supreme Court’s judgment in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) and in Karuna Parmar (supra). In these cases, the Court assessed notional income on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker, added 40% towards future prospects, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6577

In cases of minor fatalities, compensation must be calculated by adopting the minimum wage of a skilled worker, adding 40% for future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 18, ensuring standardized and just compensation across all such claims.

Cases Referred (4)