Safiya Malik

A recent judgement by Delhi High Court has resulted in a revision of the compensation amount awarded to the claimants in a motor accident case involving the death of an 11-year-old child. The court, after reviewing the award determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, modified the compensation amount based on updated legal principles concerning loss of dependency and future prospects.

The case arose from a fatal road accident that occurred on October 1, 2015, at approximately 9:30 p.m., when an 11-year-old child named Komal was walking alongside the Bypass Road in Santosh Nagar, Faridabad, accompanied by her aunt. They were both struck by a vehicle bearing registration number DL4CAL4907. The impact caused serious injuries to both individuals, and they were immediately taken to Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad. Due to the severity of her injuries, Komal was subsequently referred to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi, where she succumbed to her injuries on October 4, 2015.

Following the accident, an FIR (No. 523/2015) was registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, on the complaint of a witness, Tek Ram. The driver of the vehicle was charged under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving leading to the death of the child.

The parents of the deceased, Smt. Sushila and Shri Naresh Sharma, filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking just compensation for the loss of their daughter. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) adjudicated the matter and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,79,760/- with interest at 7% per annum. The Tribunal also granted recovery rights to the insurance company, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as it was found that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

Also Read: Supreme Court Modifies Compensation Award in Motor Accident Case, Sets Aside Contributory Negligence Finding

The insurance company challenged the Tribunal’s award, contending that the compensation should have been calculated based on notional income rather than using minimum wage standards. The claimants, in turn, filed cross-objections arguing that the compensation should be based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker, and further requested an increase in the interest rate from 7% to 9% per annum.

The court examined the legal precedents governing compensation in cases involving the death of minors and referred to multiple judicial pronouncements that addressed the methodology for determining loss of dependency. The following key cases were considered:

• K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1: This case established that for minors, notional income as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could be used as a basis for determining compensation.

• Kishan Gopal vs. Lala (2014) 1 SCC 244: The Supreme Court rationalized the notional income specified in the Second Schedule by applying the Cost Inflation Index.

• Rajendra Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2020 SCC OnLine SC 521): In this case, the court determined the notional income for a 12-year-old child as Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

• Kurvan Ansari vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2021): The Supreme Court set the notional income of a 7-year-old child at Rs. 25,000/- per annum.

• Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413: The Supreme Court stated that future loss of income should be based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker rather than notional income, which marked a shift from earlier jurisprudence.

Considering these decisions, the court stated that the calculation of compensation should be based on the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker in Haryana in 2015, which was Rs. 8,797.95 per month. Furthermore, the court held that a 40% enhancement for future prospects should be applied, in line with the judgement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Regarding the deduction of personal expenses, the court applied the principles established in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Satinder Kaur vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 11 SCC 780. Based on these judgements, a 50% deduction was considered appropriate.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Upholds MVAT on SASF Transactions: 'Sale of Stressed Assets Through Auction Constitutes a Taxable Event'

The court also reviewed the issue of the multiplier to be applied. The Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon (2023) held that a multiplier of 18 should be applied for minors. Therefore, the court deemed it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 18 in this case.

Based on the revised calculations, the court determined the total compensation as follows:

• Loss of Dependency: 13,30,344/-

• Loss of Consortium: 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- to each parent)

• Loss of Estate: 18,000/-

• Funeral Expenses: 18,000/-

Thus, the final compensation amount was revised to Rs. 14,63,000/-, along with an interest rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition until the deposit of the amount. The court directed that the additional compensation must be deposited within three months and disbursed as per the original award terms.

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Sushila & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1437

Case Number: MAC.APP. 369/2022 & CM APPL. 31056/2024

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]