Rahul Vs Satbir Singh Andors.

Present: Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate Mr. Vishwjeet Singh Rana, Advocate Mr. S. K. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company.

¶17

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

¶18

FAO-4375-2005

¶19

Present appeal has been preferred by the injured appellantclaimant who suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident which took place on 10.12.2003, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No. HR-64-0156, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.39,130/- awarded vide impugned award dated 03.05.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), being not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶20

In present case, learned Tribunal has awarded the following

¶21

compensation:

¶22

Medical treatment	Rs.19,130/-
Pain & sufferings, special diet,	Rs.20,000/-
transportation, etc.

¶23

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

-2-

¶25

FAO-4375-2005 (O&M) FAO-4376-2005 (O&M)

¶26

Total compensation awarded Rs.39,139/-

¶27

It is the case of injured appellant-claimant that he was aged 7

¶28

years of age at the time of accident and suffered fracture of arm and injuries in the stomach. On account of the injuries suffered he remained admitted in hospital for one day on 10.12.2003 and discharged on 11.12.2003. Medical expenses incurred by appellant-claimant were duly placed on record as Ex.P4 and Ex.P-100 to Ex.P-186 total amounting to Rs.19,130/-.

¶29

Learned Tribunal after considering all the bills produced on record had granted them Rs.19,130/- on account of medical expenses and further granted Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, special diet, transportation, etc.

¶30

On consideration, I find that compensation awarded under the heads pain and sufferings, special diet and transportation needs enhancement, keeping in view the fact that the minor injured appellantclaimant had suffered fracture of the arm, he would have required an attendant to look after him for at least two months. It is clearly made out that appellant-claimant must have required an attendant and therefore, compensation under the head medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and special diet is assessed as Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.19,130/-. The compensation awarded for pain and sufferings is also enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶31

Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to reworked compensation:

¶32

Medical expenses,	Rs. Rs.19,130/-	(by Rs. 30,000/-
transportation	learned Tribunal	for
charges, attendant	medical treatment)
charges and special diet

¶33

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

-3-

¶35

FAO-4375-2005 (O&M) FAO-4376-2005 (O&M)

¶36

Pain Sufferings	and	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
Total compensation awarded by	the	Rs.39,139/-
Tribunal
Total compensation awarded in app	eal		Rs.70,000/-
Enhancement compensation	in	Rs.70,000/- (as awarded in appeal) – Rs.39,139/- (as awarded by Tribunal)	Rs.30,861/-

¶37

Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation

¶38

along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶39

FAO NO. 4376-2005

¶40

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant being the mother of Lakshita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 10.12.2003, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving bus bearing registration No. HR-64-0156, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 03.05.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), being not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶41

In the present case the deceased was six months old at the time of accident. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has argued that notional income of deceased equivalent to minimum wages being earned by unskilled worker ought to have been taken as after attaining adulthood that

¶42

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

FAO-4375-2005 (O&M) FAO-4376-2005 (O&M)

¶44

-4-

¶45

was the minimum amount which deceased would have earned. On the other hand, it is also argued that appropriate multiplier of needs to be applied after taking into consideration future prospects.

¶46

In Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. , 2026 (1) DNJ 12, wherein deceased was child, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under :-

¶47

“7. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the monthly notional income can be adopted as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which both learned Counsel agree, for a Class B city is at Rs. 5400/- per month. A 40% increase has to be adopted for future prospects and the multiplier is 15 as held in Reshma Kumari (supra) and one-half deduction for personal expenses. The provision of Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses is retained. The claimants are further entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- each and loss of filial consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/each.”

¶48

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , 2017 (16) SCC 680 had prescribed multiplier of ‘18’ for age group of 15 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years. In Birbal & Anr. Vs. Bhalla & Ors. , FAO No.3408 of 2004 decided on 03.02.2026, by this Court the multiplier method for children of different age group was adopted by this Court. It was held as under :-

¶49

“Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2017 (16) SCC 680 had prescribed multiplier of ‘18’ for age group of 15 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years. It was further prescribed that multiplier on the basis of age groups needs to be applied to ensure

¶50

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

FAO-4375-2005 (O&M) FAO-4376-2005 (O&M)

¶52

-5- uniformity. Multiplier of ‘5’ was recommended for 65 to 70 years. Taking clue from multiplier based system upon reduced dependency with age similar method needs to be adopted in a case of child, who would remain dependent on his parents for number of years before he attains adulthood, to achieve uniformity in payment of compensation. Therefore, children/adult from 15 to 20 years are entitled to award of 18 as multiplier. Multiplier of ‘15’ for the children falling in the age group of 11 to 14 would be appropriate as applied by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs. The Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. , (supra). It would be appropriate if the multiplier of ‘12’ is awarded in a case of child aged between 06 to 10 years and multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in case of child between 03 to 05 and multiplier of ‘9’ would be appropriate in case of child in the age group of 0 to 03 years. The above noted multiplier would offset period of dependency of deceased on his/her parents. In present case, since deceased was 13 years old, multiplier of ‘15’ would be appropriate for the purposes of determining loss of dependency.”

¶53

Therefore, in a case of minor child notional income needs to be determined as per minimum wages and for determining loss of dependency 40% future prospects needs to be added.

¶54

In present case, since deceased was 6 months old, multiplier of ‘9’ would be appropriate for the purposes of determining loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, multiplier of ‘9’ is taken for calculating loss of dependency. Since, deceased was a minor at the time of accident and no proof of vocation and income was placed, his notional income is taken as Rs.2,197/-

¶55

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶56

FAO-4375-2005 (O&M) FAO-4376-2005 (O&M)

¶57

-6per month, minimum wages payable in the year 2003 when accident had occurred.

¶58

Deduction of 50% is required to be made towards personal expenses of deceased as she was 6 months old, survived by mother. Further compensation has to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Therefore, appellant- claimant would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Appellant-claimant would also be entitled to Rs.40,000/towards filial consortium. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶59

Accordingly, the reworked compensation payable to appellants-

¶60

claimants is as under:-

¶61

Income of deceased	Rs.2,197/- per month	Rs.2,197/- per month
Future Prospects	40% (2197+879)	Rs.3,076/-
Deduction	50% (3076-1538)	Rs.1,538/-
Multiplier	9	9
Total loss of dependency	Rs.1,538 x 12 x 9	Rs.1,66,204/-
Loss of estate		Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses		Rs.15,000/-
Filial consortium to Claimant Nos.1		Rs.40,000/-
Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Rs.70,000/-
Compensation awarded in appeal		Rs.2,36,104/-

¶62

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

-7-

¶64

FAO-4375-2005 (O&M) FAO-4376-2005 (O&M)

¶65

Enhancement of compensation	Rs.2,36,104/- (as	Rs.1,66,104/-
	awarded in appeal) -
	Rs.70,000/- (as awarded
	by Tribunal)

¶66

Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate along with 7.5% interest from date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till its realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per the award.

¶67

Present appeals are allowed in above terms.

¶68

Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.

¶69

		(PARMOD GOYAL)
08.07.2026		JUDGE
Ravinder
	Whether Speaking/Reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶70

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rahul v. Satbir Singh Andors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. Satbir Singh Andors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Chand and Others Vs Rashid and Others

(O&M) Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. Vs Om Parkash & Others

Seema Devi and Ors. Vs Balwant Singh and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Another

Anita Rani Vs Satbir Singh and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur & Anr. Vs Ram Kumar & Ors.