[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rekha Devi & Anr vs Bechan Yadav & Ors on 30 January, 2026
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30th January 2026
+ MAC.APP. 5/2026
REKHA DEVI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Sakshi Singh, Mr. Tushar Batra
and Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advs.
versus
BECHAN YADAV & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi and Ms.
Jigyasa Parashar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 25 th October
2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ['MACT'], South-West
District, Dwarka Courts in MACT No.733/2023 seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded as Rs. 13,50,260/- at an interest of 7.5% p.a.
2. The incident relates to an accident which occurred on 13 th July 2018,
wherein one Kunal Ram/deceased, aged ten years, while riding a bicycle
along with his younger brother in Madhepura, Bihar, was hit by a tractor
coming from the wrong side. The deceased was rushed to Primary Health
Centre, Singheshwar by villagers but was declared 'brought dead' and
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 5/2026 1 of 6
postmortem report of deceased was prepared recording cause of death as -
'CR failure due to neurogenic shock as a result of trauma (injuries) caused
by hard, blunt & heavy substance.'
3. On 07th January 2026, this Court had recorded the broad submissions
of parties in this case. Time had been granted to counsel for respondent
no.3/Insurance Company to revert on the submissions made regarding issue
of multiplier for victims below the age of 15 years of age.
4. As regards this issue, factor of '18' has been adopted by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanju &
Ors. in MAC.APP.30/2025 and other connected appeals
[MAC.APP.39/2025, MAC.APP.40/2025, MAC.APP.751/2025 and
MAC.APP.80/2025] where earlier decisions of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
(2020) 4 SCC 413, 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 have been referred and assessed in detail.
5. Further, reliance has been 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 the Supreme Court.
6. The relevant observations made by this Court in Sanju (supra) are
extracted as under:
"26. In my view, the argument, at least before this Court,
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 5/2026 2 of 6
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 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)
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 5/2026 3 of 6
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)
7. Taking a similar view, this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance
Company v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. 2026:DHC:756, 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, 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 cannot be accepted."
(emphasis added)
8. Accordingly, the multiplier of 18 will be effected and award shall be
recomputed as under:
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 5/2026 4 of 6
S. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this Court
No. Tribunal
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs. 9,660 (Monthly) Rs. 9,660 (monthly)
2 Add Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs. 3,864/- (Monthly) Rs. 3,864/- (Monthly)
3 Less Personal expenses of the Rs. 6,762/- (Monthly) Rs. 6,762/- (Monthly)
deceased (C) @ 50%
4 Monthly loss of dependency [(A Rs. 6,762/- Rs. 6,762/-
+B)-C = D]
5 Annual loss of dependency Rs. 81,144/- Rs. 81,144/-
(Dx12)
7 Total loss of dependency Rs. 12,17,160/- Rs. 14,60,592
(Dx12xE = F)
8 Medical expenses (G) Nil Nil
9 Compensation for loss of Rs. 96,800/- Rs. 96,800/-
consortium (H) (48,400x2)
10 Compensation for loss of love Nil Nil
and affection (I)
11 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
12 Compensation towards funeral Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total compensation Rs. 13,50,260 Rs. 15,93,692/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L)
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%
15 Enhanced Compensation Rs. 2,43,432
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
10. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
11. Enhanced compensation amount, as computed above, along with
proportionate interest, shall be deposited before the MACT within 4 weeks.
Directions regarding release of enhanced amount shall be given by MACT.
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 5/2026 5 of 6
12. List before MACT on 23rd February, 2026.
13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
14. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
15. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
JANUARY 30, 2026/mk/sp
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 5/2026 6 of 6
