Delhi High Court - Orders
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Ajju & Ors on 25 February, 2026
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 130/2026 & CM APPL. 9624/2026
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
AJJU & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 25.02.2026 CM APPL. 9623/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. CM APPL. 9625/2026 (Condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons, as stated in the said application, the same is allowed.
2. The delay of 63 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned.
3. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. MAC.APP. 130/2026 & CM APPL. 9624/2026 (Stay)
1. This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company challenging award dated 18th August 2025 (hereinafter, 'impugned award') passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ['MACT'], Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts in MACT No.377/2017 awarding Rs.11,45,111/- with 8% interest per annum.
2. The accident took place on 16th October 2015 when claimant/Ajju, who was 13 years old at the time of accident was walking back to his house on This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26 service road within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, when the offending car bearing registration no. DL-3CN-5634 came from the front and hit him, resulting in crush injuries.
3. Permanent disability was assessed at 24% and functional disability was also assessed at 24% by MACT.
4. Mr. A.K. Soni, Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company, states functional disability should have been assessed at 12%.
5. Aside from this, challenge has been made to the application of multiplier of 18 by MACT, while it should have been 15, as per Mr. Soni, Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company since claimant/Ajju was a minor. Further, minimum wages of a skilled worker should not have been considered.
6. As regards the applicability of benchmark income and multiplier for a minor, this Court has already taken a view in Tata AIG General Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. 2026:DHC:756 and in subsequent judgments of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vishnudev Sah & Ors. 2026:DHC:1266 and Rekha Devi & Anr. v. Bechan Yadav & Ors. 2026:DHC:805. Reliance was placed upon a similar view taken by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781 which dealt with the issues of benchmark income and multiplier in case of fatal accidents suffered by a minor.
7. As regards, the issue of benchmark income, this Court in Sanju (supra) assessed Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 which was a case of permanent disability of a minor child. Assessing Kajal (supra) and a line of judgments relying upon Kajal (supra), this Court arrived at the conclusion that notional income in cases of fatal accidents involving minors cannot be taken as static and minimum wages of a skilled worker of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26 concerned state would have to be taken. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under:
"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 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 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26 account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr ...
15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, applying well-established principles of law."
(emphasis added)
8. Additionally, as regards the issue of multiplier, this Court in Sanju (supra) assessed a line of judgments including Kajal (supra), Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244 were referred This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26 and assessed in detail.
9. Further, reliance was placed upon decisions by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1044, Rakesh Sharma v. Ashok 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1364 and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupan Paswan 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1045, wherein a multiplier of 18 was adopted after considering the decisions of Supreme Court.
10. Relevant observations made by this Court in Sanju (supra) are extracted as under:
"26. In my view, the argument, at least before this Court, is foreclosed by the judgments in Pooja, Rakesh Sharma, and Bhupan Paswan, where the multiplier 18 has been adopted after considering the judgments in Sarla Verma, Kajal, Master Ayush, and Sakshi Greola. The discussion on this aspect in Bhupan Paswan reads as follows:
"31. The learned Tribunal has computed the compensation by applying a multiplier of 15, by considering the age of the deceased.
32. The calculation of Multiplier has been laid down in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) as under:- "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
33. Evidently, the Judgment is silent on the multiplier to This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26 be used for the victims under 15 years of age. This incongruity in the matter of selection of multiplier in the case of persons in the age group up to 15 years was noted in by the Apex the case of Divya vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 7605/2022.
34. In the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018, while referring to the judgments of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra), the Apex Court has applied the multiplier of 18 for a minor.
35. Thus, in light of the above judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to ascertain the Multiplier as '18' to calculate the loss of dependency is calculated accordingly."
As noted above, the Supreme Court declined special leave to appeal against this judgment.
27. Having regard to the binding judgment of the Coordinate Bench, which considers Sarla Verma, I am of the view that the applicable multiplier in such cases would be 18."
(emphasis added)
11. Taking a similar view, this Court in Mukesh Kumar (supra), while dealing with an appeal filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Tribunal while assessing loss of dependency in case of death of a minor child had erred by taking the multiplier of 18, instead of 15, and that income of the deceased should either be determined on the basis of notional income or that of an unskilled worker, dismissed the said appeal and held as under:
"22.6 Analysing all these decisions, this Court in Sanju (supra) held the view, as extracted above in paragraph 14, that the applicable multiplier would be 18 and that minimum wages of a skilled worker of the concerned State would be applicable.
23. In view of the above discussion, contention of appellant This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26 cannot be accepted."
(emphasis added)
12. As regards the Disability Certificate which indicates permanent disability of 24%, MACT has made an assessment in paragraph 34 to 36 of the impugned award. According to this Court, MACT has rightly held that on account of crush injuries of the right leg, the child would remain disabled for all of his life and, therefore, there should be no deduction on account of functional disability, since his future prospects would also be affected.
13. The Court is not inclined to dilute the assessment of functional disability, in this regard.
14. However, as regards the issue of recovery rights, MACT has granted recovery rights against respondent no.2/driver, however, according to Mr. Soni, Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, an additional recovery right against respondent no.3/registered owner and respondent no.4/subsequent owner should have been granted. MACT has assessed the liability in paragraph 39 to 41 of impugned award.
15. To this extent of recovery rights, issue notice to respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 on steps being taken by appellant/Insurance Company through all permissible modes, including email.
16. In the meantime, entire compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited before MACT and the directions passed for release and apportionment of compensation, would be implemented, as per the MACT award, without any impediment of the pendency of this appeal, which is on a limited issue of recovery rights.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26
17. Trial Court Record (TCR) be also requisitioned and placed on record. Digital copy of the same be supplied to the counsels for the parties, if so requested.
18. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 25th March 2026.
19. List before the Court on 04th August 2026.
20. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 25, 2026/MK/sp This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:13:26