In fatal accidents involving minors, the benchmark income for compensation should be based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker, and the applicable multiplier is 18.

O R D E R

Lawyers are abstaining from appearing in the Court today.

CM APPL. 36032/2026

1. This application seeks release of partial amount of compensation granted by the impugned award dated 05th July 2024 passed by the MACT Rohini Courts.

2. By order dated 09th December 2024, this Court issued notice directing that the entire compensation be deposited by the insurance company before the Registrar General of this Court. However, no orders for release were passed.

3. As noted in the said order of 09th December 2024, the grounds for challenge in the appeal are related to adoption of multiplier of 18 instead of 15 for a death of a minor, who was 7 years of age and benchmark income being taken as minimum wages of a skilled worker.

4. The Court has already taken a view with respect to the issue of adoption of multiplier in respect of the death of a minor, as well as the wages which are considered as notional income.

5. Court decisions, including National Insurance Company Ltd v. Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781, Tata AIG General Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors. 2026:DHC:756, 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 in cases of minor. 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 Roopa v. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon , which were all also cases where minor victims had suffered debilitating injuries.

12. This line of judgments has recently been reiterated in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, which was once again an injury case. The Supreme Court held therein as follows:

“9. On the as