For a minor child, income must be assessed using skilled worker minimum wages, adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18, as minors are not to be categorized as non-earning individuals.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. These cross-appeals have been filed challenging the impugned award dated 4th April 2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in MACP No.529/2023, awarding compensation of Rs.23,03,490/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. While MAC.APP. 475/2025 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of compensation, MAC.APP. 209/2026 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The accident occurred on 13th July 2023 at about 03:15 a.m., when deceased was bringing Holy Kavar towards his home in Delhi on foot. When he reached in front of Jhilmil Dhaba, New Highway, a truck bearing registration No.UP-21CT-0427, driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently in a zig-zag manner, hit Deepanshu (deceased) from the backside with great force and caused fatal injuries.

3. The challenge in the petition relates to compensation in respect of the death of a minor child, who was 11 and a half years old at the time of the accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker applicable in Delhi were considered as the benchmark income, and a multiplier of 15 was applied.

4. In most judgments, including National Insurance Company Ltd v. Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781, Tata AIG General Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors. 2026:DHC:756, which have been comprehensively considered by this Court in Rubi Devi and Anr. v. The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. And Ors. 2026:DHC:3674, it has been held that the multiplier ought to be ‘18’ and the minimum wages of a skilled worker ought to be considered. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

On notional income of a minor

10. As regards determination of benchmark income, this Court in Sanju (supra), after examining the decision in Kajal (supra) and the subsequent judgments that followed and relied upon it, concluded that the notional income in cases concerning fatal accidents of minor children cannot be treated as a fixed or static figure. Instead, the appropriate way to assess the income is on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State. The relevant observations of the Court are reproduced below:

“10. The first of these cases was Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, which was a case of injury inflicted upon a child of 12 years of age. The Court computed loss of future income on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker, reasoning as follows:

“20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000.”

11. The judgment in Kajal was followed in Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Minor R