FAO-2030-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (130/2) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Shifali Sharma and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Jatin Kumar, for the appellant Mr. I.S. Kooner, for *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a motor vehicular accident on 18.05.2024, ha 2. Learned counsel for the appellant learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the impugned award, whereby an excessive compensation of interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of death of a 10 child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. 2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Shifali Sharma and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. Mr. I.S. Kooner, Advocate, for the caveator. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a motor vehicular accident on 18.05.2024, ha Learned counsel for the appellant– learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the impugned award, whereby an excessive compensation of interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of death of a 10 child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2030-2026(O&M) Date of decision- 21.04.2026 ...Appellant ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Insurance Company. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant–Insurance Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a motor vehicular accident on 18.05.2024, has been allowed. –insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the impugned award, whereby an excessive compensation of ₹20,33,491/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of death of a 10-year child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. Insurance Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2- claimants on account of the death of Jovita Sharma, minor daughter of respondent insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law while passing the along with year-old child, by adopting an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach in assessment. SHUBHAM 2026.04.27 16:16 I am the author of this document FAO-2030-2026 Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notion income of the deceased as that of a skilled worker at further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. Furthermore, it is a in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands vitiated. Subseque the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. Lastly, it is su notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and therefore deserves to be reduced accordingly. Reliance has been placed on Kumari v. Madan Mohan AIR 2013 SC (SUPP Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Transport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121 Transport Corporation SC Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2024, Rajindra Singh v. National Insurance Company SC Civil Appeal No.2624 OF 2020, Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Insurance Company 2025 INSC 1070. 3. Per contra submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from an irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in appeals. 2026 (O&M) -2- Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notion income of the deceased as that of a skilled worker at further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. Furthermore, it is argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands vitiated. Subsequently, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also ignored the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that both on the aspect of multiplier as well as notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and therefore deserves to be reduced accordingly. Reliance has been placed on Kumari v. Madan Mohan AIR 2013 SC (SUPP Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Transport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121, Thangavel v. M.D. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation SC Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2024, Rajindra Singh v. Insurance Company SC Civil Appeal No.2624 OF 2020, Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Insurance Company 2025 INSC 1070. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from an irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in appeals. Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notion income of the deceased as that of a skilled worker at ₹12,576/- per month and further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. rgued that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands ntly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also ignored the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the bmitted that both on the aspect of multiplier as well as notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and therefore deserves to be reduced accordingly. Reliance has been placed on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan AIR 2013 SC (SUPP) 474, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma v. Delhi , Thangavel v. M.D. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation SC Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2024, Rajindra Singh v. Insurance Company SC Civil Appeal No.2624 OF 2020, Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Insurance Company 2025 INSC 1070. , learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2-claimants submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from an irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well-reasoned on the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in appeals. Further, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional per month and further added 40% towards future prospects, which is wholly contrary to the settled principles governing compensation in cases of death of minor children. rgued that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality in applying the multiplier of 18, whereas in cases of death of children up to the age of 15 years, the applicable multiplier is 15, and thus the entire computation stands ntly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also ignored the settled distinction between injury cases and fatal accident cases while relying upon judgments which are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the bmitted that both on the aspect of multiplier as well as notional income, the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and Reshma National Insurance arla Verma v. Delhi , Thangavel v. M.D. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation SC Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2024, Rajindra Singh v. Insurance Company SC Civil Appeal No.2624 OF 2020, Hitesh claimants submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any reasoned on the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly SHUBHAM 2026.04.27 16:16 I am the author of this document FAO-2030-2026 4. I have heard with their able assistance. 5. Insofar as the challenge to the application of multiplier is concerned, it may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manzoor Ahmad Simon support from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 738, has applied the multiplier of 18 even in cases said approach reflects a progressive and purposive interpretation of the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that the multiplier ought proposition of law. The determination of multiplier is not to be applied in a straitjacket formula, particularly in cases involving death of a child, where the loss is not merely pecuniary b expectations. Even otherwise, the adoption of multiplier ‘18’, though higher than the structured formula, does not result in an excessive or unjust compensation so as to warrant interference. has thus adopted an approach which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or contrary to law. 7. Equally untenable is the challenge to the assessment of notional income of the deceased at Tribunal has not treated the deceased as an actual earning member, but has assessed her potential earning capacity on a reasonable and pragmatic basis, keeping in view the prevailing minimum wage structure. The Hon’ble S 2026 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, with their able assistance. Insofar as the challenge to the application of multiplier is concerned, it may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 3692 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. , has applied the multiplier of 18 even in cases said approach reflects a progressive and purposive interpretation of the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that the multiplier ought to have been restricted to ‘15’ cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition of law. The determination of multiplier is not to be applied in a straitjacket formula, particularly in cases involving death of a child, where the loss is not merely pecuniary but extends to the loss of future prospects and filial Even otherwise, the adoption of multiplier ‘18’, though higher than the structured formula, does not result in an excessive or unjust compensation so as to warrant interference. The learned Tribunal, while applying the multiplier of ‘18’, has thus adopted an approach which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or contrary to law. Equally untenable is the challenge to the assessment of notional income of the deceased at ₹12,576/- per mo Tribunal has not treated the deceased as an actual earning member, but has assessed her potential earning capacity on a reasonable and pragmatic basis, keeping in view the prevailing minimum wage structure. The Hon’ble S learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, Insofar as the challenge to the application of multiplier is concerned, it may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v. , 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, while drawing Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC , has applied the multiplier of 18 even in cases involving minor victims. The said approach reflects a progressive and purposive interpretation of the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that the to have been restricted to ‘15’ cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition of law. The determination of multiplier is not to be applied in a straitjacket formula, particularly in cases involving death of a child, where the loss ut extends to the loss of future prospects and filial Even otherwise, the adoption of multiplier ‘18’, though higher than the structured formula, does not result in an excessive or unjust compensation so as d Tribunal, while applying the multiplier of ‘18’, has thus adopted an approach which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or Equally untenable is the challenge to the assessment of notional per month. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has not treated the deceased as an actual earning member, but has assessed her potential earning capacity on a reasonable and pragmatic basis, keeping in view the prevailing minimum wage structure. The Hon’ble Supreme learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, Insofar as the challenge to the application of multiplier is concerned, it Baby Sakshi Greola v. , while drawing Master , (2022) 7 SCC involving minor victims. The said approach reflects a progressive and purposive interpretation of the principles In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that the to have been restricted to ‘15’ cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition of law. The determination of multiplier is not to be applied in a straitjacket formula, particularly in cases involving death of a child, where the loss ut extends to the loss of future prospects and filial Even otherwise, the adoption of multiplier ‘18’, though higher than the structured formula, does not result in an excessive or unjust compensation so as d Tribunal, while applying the multiplier of ‘18’, has thus adopted an approach which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or Equally untenable is the challenge to the assessment of notional nth. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has not treated the deceased as an actual earning member, but has assessed her potential earning capacity on a reasonable and pragmatic basis, upreme SHUBHAM 2026.04.27 16:16 I am the author of this document FAO-2030-2026 Court in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), has recognized and approved a progressive approach of assessing notional income on the basis of minimum wages of a minor. 8. The law is well settled that compens of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be “just compensation”, which necessarily entails a fair and reasonable estimation of the loss suffered by the claimants. In cases involving the death of a minor child, a strict or pe defeat the very object of the legislation. The assessment made by the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this C ground to interfere with the award dated and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. 10 Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. April 21, 2026 Shubham 2026 (O&M) -4- Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), following has recognized and approved a progressive approach of assessing notional income on the basis of minimum wages of a minor. The law is well settled that compens of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be “just compensation”, which necessarily entails a fair and reasonable estimation of the loss suffered by the claimants. In cases involving the death of a minor child, a strict or pe defeat the very object of the legislation. The assessment made by the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity warranting In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this C ground to interfere with the award dated 18.10.2025 and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable following Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush has recognized and approved a progressive approach of assessing notional income on the basis of minimum wages of a minor. The law is well settled that compensation awarded under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be “just compensation”, which necessarily entails a fair and reasonable estimation of the loss suffered by the claimants. In cases involving the death of a minor child, a strict or pedantic approach would defeat the very object of the legislation. The assessment made by the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity warranting In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No Master Ayush has recognized and approved a progressive approach of assessing notional ation awarded under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be “just compensation”, which necessarily entails a fair and reasonable estimation of the loss suffered by the claimants. In dantic approach would defeat the very object of the legislation. The assessment made by the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity warranting ourt finds no passed by the learned Tribunal ) SHUBHAM 2026.04.27 16:16 I am the author of this document