NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. SANJU AND ORS

Appearances: Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Shubham Singh, Mr. Kamal Kishor, Advocates for Appellant in item Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vaibhav Singh & Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates for Appellant – Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd in Item No. 4. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Appellant in Item No. 5. Ms. Tanya Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Verma, Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocates for respondent in item Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advocate for R-1 & 2 in Item No. 4. [M:- 9910211045]. Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate for R-3 in Item No. 5. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. These five appeals have been heard together, as they all concern a common question, viz., the appropriate parameters for determination of loss of dependency in claims arising out of fatal accidents involving children below the age of 15 years. The appeals have been filed by the Insurance Companies in four cases [MAC.APP. 30/2025, MAC.APP. 39/2025, MAC.APP. 40/2025, and MAC.APP. 751/2025], and by the parents of the deceased [claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal] in the fifth case, i.e. MAC.APP. 80/2025. 2. The facts of each case, to the extent of involvement of the insured vehicles and findings of negligence against the drivers of the insured vehicles, as a result of which the child lost his/her life, are not disputed. It is, therefore, not necessary to advert to those facts in detail. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.12.2025 20:58:20 MAC.APP. 30/2025 & Connected Matters

3. The background relating to each victim and the consequent award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] are enumerated in the table below: Appeal No. No. Case before Tribunal Date of accident Name and age of the victim Income taken Tribunal computation of dependency Multiplier adopted the Tribunal Award account dependency Award account consortium Award account loss of estate Award account funeral expenses Total Compensation awarded MAC.APP. MACT No. MAC.APP. MACT No. MAC.APP. MACT No. MAC.APP. MACT No. MAC.APP. MACT No.

15.03.2018

15.03.2018

15.03.2018

07.04.2023

24.09.2020 Khushi 12 years Rs.9,118.66 per month Nisha 7 years Rs.9,118.66 per month Arjun 14 years Rs.9,118.66 per month Ankit Yadav 7 years Rs.20,903 per month Umesh 10 years Rs.30,000 per annum 18 18 18 18 15 Rs.13,79,000 Rs.13,79,000 Rs.13,79,000 Rs.31,60,533 Rs.4,50,000 Rs.48,400 Rs.48,400 Rs.48,400 Rs.96,800 Rs.80,000 Rs.18,150 Rs.18,150 Rs.18,150 Rs.18,150 Rs.15,000 Rs.18,150 Rs.18,150 Rs.18,150 Rs.18,150 Rs.15,000 Rs.14,64,000 Rs.14,64,000 Rs.14,64,000 Rs.32,94,000 Rs.5,45,000 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.12.2025 20:58:20 MAC.APP. 30/2025 & Connected Matters

4. I have heard Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Singh, and Mr. R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Insurance Companies, and Ms. Tanya Singh, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, and Mr. Shrey Chathly, learned counsel for the APPLICABILITY OF NOTIONAL INCOME AS PER THE SECOND claimants. A. SCHEDULE VIS-À-VIS MINIMUM WAGES 5. The principal ground urged by learned counsel for the Insurance Companies is that loss of dependency in such cases must be computed on the basis of “notional income” of a minor, as was provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [“the Act”], prior to its amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. A number of authorities of the Supreme Court have been cited in support of this proposition, commencing with the decision in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar1 followed by R. K. Malik v. Kiran Pal2, Kishan Gopal v. Lala3, Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy4, Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu5. 6. In all these cases, the Supreme Court determined compensation payable on the basis of notional income. The Second Schedule was relatable to Section 163-A of the pre-amendment Act6, which provided for compensation payable to victims of a road accident causing death or permanent disability/grievous injuries, without proof of negligence. However, in the aforesaid judgments, notional income was applied in cases involving the death of a minor child, even when claims were