Major Dependant Children Entitled To Compensation Under MV Act, Dependency Of Married Children To Be Seen Carefully: Rajasthan High Court

While rejecting an insurance company's plea challenging Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal's award granting over Rs. 66 Lakh compensation to a 58-year-old deceased government servant's kin, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that adoption of the split multiplier method for calculating compensation was impermissible in law.

The court further reiterated that major dependant children are entitled to compensation while married children's dependancy has to be evaluated carefully. 

The company had claimed that in the present case split multiplier method should have been applied considering the age of the deceased and other relevant factors; based on this method, the company submitted that the correct compensation should have been Rs.35,73,038, and the award granted was in excess of Rs.30,65,762. It was also argued that Tribunal wrongly considered the major children as dependents, contrary to settled legal position

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Maya Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), Justice Ganesh Ram Meena reiterated that adoption of the split-multiplier method "is now impermissible in law" for being arbitrary and speculative. 

"The approach of bifurcating the multiplier based on the deceased's pre-retirement and post-retirement income has been categorically struck down by the Supreme Court  in Maya Singh, which reaffirmed that a uniform multiplier must be applied based on the age of the deceased at the time of death, taking into account the total income, including pensionary benefits. The Tribunal's application of a uniform multiplier of 9, in accordance with this binding precedent, is therefore correct and legally sound. The Supreme Court, in its ruling in Maya Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., definitively struck down the use of the split multiplier method in motor accident compensation cases, emphasizing its inconsistency with the principles of uniformity, predictability, and fairness enshrined in the Motor Vehicles Act. The split multiplier method involved calculating compensation for loss of dependency using two different multipliers: one for the deceased's earning years before retirement, based on their salary, and a separate, often lower multiplier for the post-retirement years, based on expected pension income. The Court observed that this bifurcation led to arbitrary and speculative estimations, introducing subjectivity and inequality in the computation process. The judgment criticized the method for creating unjustified distinctions between salaried individuals who receive pensions and those who do not, thereby failing to uphold the egalitarian aim of the compensation framework". 

Justice Meena said that courts must not indulge in "hypothetical postulations" about future income fluctuations and should instead adhere to the structured formula approach, which balances both the interests of claimants and insurers within a predictable and rational legal framework. 

The high court further said that the Tribunal, after a careful assessment of the evidence on record, correctly applied a dependency fraction of 3/4th despite three of the four claimants being major children, including one married daughter.

This it said aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Seema Rani and ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025) which emphasizes that the determination of dependency must be based on the factual matrix of each case, "taking into account not only the age and marital status of the claimants but also the extent of their actual financial dependence on the deceased".

"The hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Rani clarified that major children, particularly those who are unmarried and dependent, are entitled to compensation, and that married children's dependency must be evaluated with care rather than being automatically excluded...The Supreme Court in Seema Rani has consistently held that compensation must be computed using a uniform multiplier applied to the total income, without arbitrary deductions or bifurcations, ensuring equitable and just relief to the dependents. Given that the Tribunal's award adheres to these established legal standards and is supported by evidence, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation," the high court added. 

Accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal were found to be fair, reasonable and in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence, and the petition was dismissed.

Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munni & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 247

Click Here To Read/Download Order