##PAGE1##

$~21

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 29th May 2026.

+ MAC.APP. 379/2026 & CM APPL. 37909-10/2026

LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.

versus

BASANTI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv & Mr. Ritik

Singh, Advs. for R-1 & 2/claimants.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

%

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed assailing impugned award dated 30^th

March, 2026 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

[‘MACT/Tribunal’], South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in

MACT No. 414/2023 awarding compensation of Rs. 26,76,000/- along with

interest at 7.5%.

2. Mr. A. K. Soni, counsel for Insurance Company, challenges the award

on the basis that notional income of deceased, who was a 13-year-old child

was determined on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker and by

applying multiplier of 18 instead of 15, while calculating loss of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL MAC APP 379/2026 1 of 11

KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Signing Date:02.06.2026

15:47:47

dependency.

3. This issue has now been decided by this court in Rubi Devi and Anr.

v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. 2026:DHC:3674, where

after assessing judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, this Court

held that minimum wages of a skilled worker and multiplier of 18 will be

considered in relation to death of a minor child below 15 years of age.

Relevant findings of the Court 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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL MAC APP 379/2026 2 of 11

KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Signing Date:02.06.2026

15:47:47

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 aspect of monthly income of the minor

appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the

judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present

case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to

take into accou