IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ......Appellant vs.

NEETA AND ORS ......Respondents Reserved on:- 16.01.2026 Pronounced on:- 21.01.2026 Uploaded on:- 22.01.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Mallika Dhillon, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kapish Singla, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.5,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argues that learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of of 17 instead of 15. She further contends that multiplier of 15 ought to be applied in cases wherein the compensation is assessed for death or injury sustained by minor in motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, she prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17, however, as per the settled law, the appropriate multiplier should be 18. He therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the whole record of this case with his able assistance.

6. So far as the contention raised by the appellant–insurance company that the learned Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 17, instead of 15 as allegedly prescribed for minors is concerned the said contention is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in a catena of judgments, consistently held that in cases involving death or permanent disability of minors, the multiplier applicable is not to be mechanically restricted to 15. Rather, for victims below the age of 18 years, the multiplier of 18 has been judicially approved for the purpose of computing just and reasonable compensation.

8. In this regard, reliance is rightly placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 wherein the Apex Court authoritatively held that in the case of a minor victim, the appropriate multiplier would be 18.

9. The relevant extract of Kajal’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of L 15,000/- per annum 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 L 15,000/- per annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be L 15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is L 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 L 6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to L 14,65,430.40, which is rounde