Delhi High Court
Savita & Ors vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 30 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 10th March 2026
Pronounced on : 30th April 2026
Uploaded on : 30th April 2026
+ MAC.APP. 330/2024
SAVITA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Verma and Ms.
Tanya Singh, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation of Rs. 16,76,900/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’),
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in MAC Petition No. 205/2018 by
award dated 11th March 2024.
2. Mr. Vaibhav Verma, counsel appears on behalf of
appellants/claimants and seeks enhancement of compensation on the sole
basis that benchmark income has wrongly been assessed at the minimum
wages of an unskilled person as prevalent in Uttar Pradesh (‘U.P.’) and
were taken at Rs.7,400/- per month.
The Accident
3. On 18th January 2018, at about 08:30 am, Sh. Ashok Kumar
(hereinafter, ‘deceased’) was going from Noida to his village, Nangla
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 1 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
Rustampur on his motorcycle. When he reached near Zero Point Yamuna
Expressway, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, the offending vehicle,
being a motorcycle, bearing registration no. UP-16BB-6929, driven by
the driver, came from the back side and dashed with the motorcycle of
deceased, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was removed
to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida, where he was declared as ‘brought
dead’ by the doctors.
4. He was about 37 years of age and was survived by his wife, three
children and mother. The offending vehicle was insured with
respondent/Insurance Company.
Impugned Award
5. Claim petition was filed on behalf of legal representatives (‘LRs’)
of deceased. Three witnesses were examined, PW-1, Smt. Savita, wife of
deceased; PW-2, Sh. Ajit Singh, eye witness of the accident and; PW-3,
Narender Kumar Gautam, proprietor of M/s Kanta Enterprises.
6. On issue no.1, MACT held that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, which was insured with
respondent/Insurance Company. As regards the computation, the
following compensation was awarded:
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) Rs 7,400
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.2,960
3. Less-personal expenses of the deceased (C) Rs. 2,590
4. Monthly loss of dependency [(A+B) - C =
D] Rs. 7,770
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 93,240
6. Multiplier (E) 15
7. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x E = F) Rs. 13,98,600
8. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of love and affection
(H) Nil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 2 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
10. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs. 2,42,000
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 18,150
12. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150
(K)
13. Total Compensation Rs. 16,76,900
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L)
14. Interest Awarded 7.5%
7. Counsel for appellants/claimants relies upon the testimony of PW-
1, who stated that the deceased was working as a helper at M/s Kanta
Enterprises in Sector-49, U.P. at Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is further
stated that this was corroborated by evidence of PW-3 who stated that
the deceased was a supervisor in M/s Kanta Enterprises and was
engaged in services from 01st September 2017 to 18th January 2018 at
monthly wages of Rs.15,000/-. A wage certificate had been placed on
record by PW-3 exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2.
8. However, since he was not able to substantiate in his cross-
examination as to any further proof of Rs.15,000/- being paid as monthly
salary to deceased, MACT chose to instead rely upon the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker.
9. Mr. Verma, counsel for appellants/claimants has relied upon
decision of Supreme Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022)
1 SCC 198 where the Supreme Court has stated that in the absence of
documentary evidence, some amount of guesswork is required to be
done, though the guesswork should not be totally detached from reality.
While computing the income, the adoption of lowest tier of minimum
wage should not be the default mechanism, if the claimants have been
unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income.
10. In that case, while assessing the benchmark income of deceased
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 3 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
for the purpose of loss of dependency, the Court arrived at the finding on
the basis of age and nature of work, which was purported to be done by
deceased.
11. On that basis, counsel for appellants/claimants, states that
considering the deceased was doing the work of a helper or a supervisor
in M/s. Kanta Enterprise, minimum wages of an unskilled worker should
not be accorded.
12. Mr. Vaibhav Verma, counsel for appellants/claimants, further
contended that the informal unorganised sector always pays employees
in cash and appellant/wife of deceased was unable to provide any
document to support the claim of monthly payment. Wage certificate
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2 had been provided by PW-3. In these
circumstances, the minimum wage notification, at best, can be a
yardstick, but it cannot be taken as an absolute parameter.
13. Mr. Verma, counsel for appellants/claimants, submitted that just
because records have not been adequately maintained by PW-3, the same
should not imperil the family of deceased. He further stated that taking
the minimum wages of U.P. was unreliable, as there are various regions
of Eastern and Western U.P., which are strikingly different in terms of
income, earnings, and cost of living.
14. Reliance has also been placed on the first information report
(‘FIR’), which mentioned that the deceased was travelling by his
motorcycle from his Village Nagla Rustampur, Greater Noida, at 08:00
am for his duty towards Noida, further substantiating his employment.
Analysis
15. It would be constructive to examine decisions of the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 4 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
Court and this Court in order to understand the rationale behind the
views taken regarding affixing benchmark income in various scenarios
and assess some of these decisions delivered by the Supreme Court in a
chronological order.
Supreme Court Decisions
16. In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166, while
ascertaining compensation for the death of a husband and wife who were
survived by 4 dependents, the Supreme Court considered the standard of
living of the family of deceased in the absence of documentary evidence,
holding that the standard of living must be preserved in tandem with the
jurisprudence of motor accident compensation. Relevant assessment of
the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:
“II. Assessment of monthly income
11.Second, although it is correct that the claimants have
been unable to produce any document evidencing Vinod’s
income, nor have they established his employment as a
teacher; but that does not justify adoption of the lowest tier
of minimum wage while computing his income. From the
statement of witnesses, documentary evidence-on-record
and circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod
was comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled.
Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for
his family as evidenced by his use of a motorcycle for
commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a
deceased’s family is a fundamental endeavour of motor
accident compensation law. [ See R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal,
(2009) 14 SCC 1, para 9 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 265 : (2010)
1 SCC (Cri) 1265] Thus, at the very least, the minimum
wage of Rs 6197 as applicable to skilled workers during
April 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied in
his case.”
(emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 5 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
17. In Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2022) 17 SCC 321, the underlying facts involved a claim for
compensation filed by the LRs of a deceased person working as a fish
vendor-cum driver with a valid license. Relying upon Chandra (supra),
the Supreme Court held that relevant minimum wages may be used as a
yardstick, along with some guesswork. Additionally, the Supreme Court
also looked at the classification of a ‘skilled worker’ under the Kerala
Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971 in order to
determine the wages paid to a driver in the year 2015. Relevant findings
of the Supreme Court are extracted as under:
“21. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar
Yadav [Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC
198 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 359 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 204] ,
has aptly held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the
minimum wages notification along with some amount of
guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall
act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased.
In this context, keeping in view the import of Section 57 of
the Evidence Act, 1872, we take judicial notice of the
provisions of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, especially Section
2 thereof which defines the following expressions:
“2. Definitions.–In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires–
(a) “employer” means in relation to any motor
transport undertaking, the person who or the authority
which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the
motor transport undertaking, and where the said
affairs are entrusted to any other person whether
called a manager, managing director, managing agent
or by any other name, such other person;
(b) “motor transport undertaking” means a motor
transport undertaking including a private carrier
engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by
road for hire or reward;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 6 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
(c) “motor transport worker” means a person who is
employed in a motor transport undertaking directly or
through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work
in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to
attend to duties in connection with the arrival,
departure, loading or unloading of such transport
vehicle and includes a driver, conductor, cleaner,
station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk; cash
clerk, depot clerk, time keeper, watchman, or
attendant;
(d) “fair wages” means the rate of wages payable to
the motor transport workers specified in the Schedule
to this Act or the agreed rate of wages whichever is
higher.”
22. Schedule B Category III to the Kerala Fair Wages Act
classifies a driver as a “skilled worker”. Reading this in
conjunction with the Notification that came into effect from
1-1-2015 which amended Schedule A to the Kerala Fair
Wages Act, prescribing a minimum pay scale of the workers
listed in Schedule B, it is apparent that a “driver” in Kerala
earned a minimum of Rs 15,600 in 2015. It appears to us
that the aforesaid Act and the notification issued thereunder
were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High
Court. As a result thereto, the High Court could not be
cognizant of the statutory mandate prescribing minimum
wages for a skilled worker like “driver”, and thus, erred in
fixing the income of the deceased at Rs 10,000. We are
therefore inclined to fix the income of the deceased
notionally at Rs 15,600 per month.”
(emphasis added)
18. In Chandra (supra), which is a decision delivered by the Supreme
Court on 01st October 2021, the deceased/Shivpal was employed as a
driver of a truck trailer. Claimants had raised a plea that the deceased
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal had taken the
income of deceased at Rs.5,746/- per month as per the minimum wages
of a skilled worker, even though, the wife of deceased had stated in her
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 7 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
deposition that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Against
this depressed assessment by the MACT, an appeal was preferred before
the High Court which was dismissed.
18.1. The Supreme Court in paragraph 10 noted that it has already been
proved from evidence on record that the deceased was driving a heavy
vehicle on the date of accident possessed a driving license for the same.
In the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wage notification can
be a yardstick, but cannot provide an absolute figure. The inability to
produce documentary evidence did not justify the adoption of the lowest
tier of minimum wage while computing the income of deceased.
Supreme Court considered the growth of the vehicle population and
demand for good drivers and assessed the income of deceased at Rs.
8,000/- per month for calculating loss of dependency.
19. In Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors v United India Insurance Company
Ltd & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699, one, Ghasita Ram was working
as a driver in a private company and died in a motor accident when he
was driving a motorcycle, while returning home from work. His salary
certificate and pay slip had been produced and the income of deceased
was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.11,225/- per month. An appeal was
filed before the High Court by the Insurance Company challenging this
aspect. The High Court reduced the income of deceased and assessed the
same at Rs. 4,836/- per month, in view of the minimum wages fixed by
the State.
19.1. This was challenged before the Supreme Court on the basis that
the wife of deceased had testified that he was earning Rs.17,000/- per
month as a driver before the Tribunal, same had also been testified by his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 8 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
co-workers who were eye-witnesses to the accident and further
corroborated by the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased.
Passbook of the deceased had not been produced by the claimants.
19.2. The Supreme Court relied upon the decision in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509,
emphasizing that the claim petition constituted under Section 165 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV’ Act) is neither a suit nor an adversarial
lis, therefore, strict rules of pleadings do not apply. Further, the Tribunal
can follow a summary procedure in the process of inquiry under Section
169 of MV Act. Reliance was also placed on Sunita and Ors v
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC
486, on the standard of proof being preponderance of probabilities.
Taking these into account, the opinion of High Court in rejecting the
salary certificate and pay slip on the ground that the person issuing these
documents was not examined, was rejected by the Supreme Court. Based
on the statement of deceased’s wife and as corroborated by the co-
workers, the Supreme Court upheld the assessment taken by the Tribunal
and reverted the benchmark income to Rs. 11,225/-.
20. In Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf & Ors.,
(2025) INSC 191, the facts involved a 27-year-old travelling on his
motorcycle who suffered injuries in an accident. Income of Rs. 10,000/-
per month was asserted by the claimants, however, the Tribunal
considered the benchmark income at Rs.7,500/- per month. This
assessment was endorsed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme
Court relied upon the decision in Chandra (supra) and took the monthly
income at Rs.10,000/- relying upon the statement of deceased’s wife and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 9 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
considering that there was no material to discard the oral testimony of
the wife.
21. In Rasmita Sahu and Ors v Divisional Manager and Anr. SLP
(C) No. 5252/2023, an order delivered on 28th May 2025, the Supreme
Court was hearing an appeal filed by the LRs of deceased who was
riding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle. Income of deceased was
assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.35,000/- per month, while the claimants
had contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 55,000/- per month. An
appeal was filed by the Insurance Company before the High Court,
stating that the assessment was excessive and, therefore, was assessed at
Rs. 15,000/- per month by the High Court, in the absence of any credible
evidence on record and consideration of place of residence and
employment of deceased.
21.1. The Supreme Court noted that the salary certificate of deceased
had been produced, which had not been refuted by the respondents.
Relying upon Kishan Gopal and Anr v Lala and Ors., (2014) 1 SCC
244, where the Supreme Court held that documentary evidence placed on
record assumes greater evidentiary value, especially when respondents
have failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence. Considering that the
evidence was uncontroverted, the income of deceased was taken at Rs.
35,000/- per month.
22. In a recent decision of Sharad Singh v. H.D. Narang, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2085, the Supreme Court considered the future career
prospects of a student preparing for Chartered Accountancy
examinations and the nature of employment he would have been
engaged in, Rs. 5,000/- was taken as the monthly income and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 10 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
Supreme Court observed as under:
“5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued
that there was no rationale in adopting the minimum wages
for determining the income of a bright student who was in
the process of completing his graduation and proceeding to
sit for the Chartered Accountants examinations. The learned
Counsel for the Insurance Company first argued that the
amounts determined as minimum wages, is as per the
schedule in Delhi relatable to a graduate. We were not
convinced that the minimum wages would be determined on
the basis of the educational qualification alone without
reference to the nature of work carried on. The learned
Counsel after further verification submitted that minimum
wages adopted is of the year 2001 applicable to a skilled
worker. We are not convinced that even that can be adopted
for a graduate who was in the process of sitting for the
Chartered Accountant examination which would have
placed him in a good employment with immense prospects.
The aspirations of the young man were shattered by the
accident which left him paraplegic and fighting for breath,
which also prompted the parents to relocate to another part
of the country. We are of the opinion that even if he had not
obtained the certificate as a Chartered Accountant, upon
graduation, he could have been employed as an Accountant,
who would have, on any reasonable estimate, received an
amount of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income in the year 2001, if
the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker was Rs.
3,352/-. Adopting Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income, we are of
the opinion that, as has been held in Pranay Sethi, 40% has
to be computed as future prospects. The loss of income for
the 100% disabled paraplegic would be Rs. 15,12,000/- (Rs.
5,000/- × 140% × 12 × 18)…”
(emphasis added)
23. It would also be apposite to consider decisions delivered by this
Court in a chronological order.
Delhi High Court Decisions
24. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 11 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
Ltd. v. Ram Prakash Mishra, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 231 was
adjudicating the issue of adoption of minimum wages of a skilled worker
in Delhi, while the claimant was a resident of UP, as claimed by the
Insurance Company. It was further alleged that no documentary proof of
income had been produced before the Tribunal. Per contra, counsel for
claimant asserted that he was a graduate holding a degree of LL.B. and
had previously worked with Food Corporation of India (FCI). After his
retirement, the claimant initially worked as an Advocate, whereafter he
started working as a property dealer and was earning more than Rs.
30,000/- per month from the said business. It was also admitted that
adoption of Rs. 16,858/- as monthly income was incorrect and minimum
wages applicable to a skilled worker in Delhi, should at least be
applicable, considering that the claimant was working in a clerical
capacity. The Court perused the documentary evidence and the fact that,
even though, the claimant was a resident of UP, he had been residing in
Sultanpur, Delhi, at the time of accident was taken notice of. Applying
the minimum wages of a skilled worker in Delhi, this Court considered
the totality of facts including his educational qualifications. Relevant
paragraphs of the decision are extracted hereunder for ease of reference:
“8. Coming to the respondent’s plea that his monthly
income should be treated as Rs. 12,142/-, I find that while it
is correct that the respondent did not file any proof of his
monthly income being Rs. 30,000/- at the time of the
accident, the fact remains that there is no dispute that he
was holding a LL.B. degree at the time of the accident. It is
also not seriously denied that after his retirement from the
FCI, the respondent initially worked as an Advocate and
was thereafter working as a property dealer. It is in the light
of these admitted facts that the respondent’s income has to
be determined….”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 12 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
(emphasis added)
25. This Court has also taken a view in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Rajneesh Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7682 which was an
appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the assessment of
monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- for injured/claimant as a student giving
final year examinations of Chartered Accountancy (CA) was without
basis and de hors the evidence on record. What was pressed was that the
process of becoming a Chartered Accountant is arduous and only 8.26%
of candidates are estimated to pass through the final examinations. The
mere fact that injured/claimant had passed the first set of papers could
not lead to a safe assumption that he would have passed his final papers
for Chartered Accountancy. It was pleaded that assessment ought to have
been done on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at that time. This
Court relied upon the testimony of injured/claimant and his inability to
continue his studies, along with taking tuitions through which he was
earning Rs. 15,000-20,000/- which had not been proved through
documentary evidence, however, reliance was placed on his cross
examination. Rejecting the contentions of the Insurance Company, this
Court upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. Observations in this regard
are extracted as under:
“14. In these facts and circumstance, this Court is of the
view that the possibility of him not clearing the Chartered
Accountancy Examination may not be so acutely relevant to
reduce his income assessment from Rs. 25,000/- (as
assessed by the Ld. MACT) to minimum wages prescribed at
Rs. 9,282/- (as asserted by the appellant). It is evident from
the facts on record that not only was respondent No. 1, a
B.Com. Graduate but also had been successful in clearing
his two groups of papers for the CA Exam and most
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 13 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
importantly had already completed three years of
Articleship. This coupled with the fact that he was possibly
providing tuition to students of class 12th for Accountancy
and Mathematics (even though there was no documentary
proof) would show that he was a serious contender and not
involved in the pursuit of CA as a pastime or with a half-
hearted approach. He was clearly a serious student and
even assuming against him that he was not giving tuitions to
earn livelihood, reasonable assessment even in 2012 would
be that he was a 24-year-old graduate, in the hope of
acquiring a professional degree and had substantially
travelled ahead on that path. Because an accident occurred
just before the final examinations of CA, cannot reduce him
to a minimum wages category. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram (supra) held as
under:
“In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage
notification can be a yardstick but at the same time
cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the
deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on
record some amount of guesswork is required to be
done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing
the income of the deceased should not be totally
detached from reality. Merely because the claimants
were unable to produce documentary evidence to show
the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify
adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while
computing the income.”
(emphasis added)
26. This Court in Geeta v. Mohd. Jamaluddin, 2023 SCC OnLine Del
8065 while deciding the monthly income of a domestic servant placed
reliance upon the statement of her employer, in the absence of an
appointment letter, considering the informal nature of the employment.
Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under:
“17. This Court has perused the documents and assessed
the contention of the parties. The assessment by this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 14 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
is as under:
(i) MACT had not accepted the testimony of the appellant
that she was earning Rs. 5000/- per month as a domestic
servant, despite her employer Shri Ashish Bhatnagar having
deposed in her favour and corroborated the same, as PW3.
Merely because in his cross-examination, he could not
produce an appointment letter and a document to confirm
that she was given payment of Rs. 5000/-, MACT granted
her minimum wages only. In the opinion of this Court, a
domestic servant will be paid in cash and there will be no
documentation either on the side of the employer or the
employee for receipt of such wages. Payment of Rs. 5000/-
per month for a domestic servant at that time would be a
reasonable figure from all points of view. Further, the
appellant/injured had taken pains to produce her employer
as a witness, who categorically stated in her testimony that
she indeed had been working as a domestic servant since
2004, and after her accident she had not come to work. In
his cross-examination, he stated that he did not have any
receipt of the payment of Rs. 5000/- but denied the
suggestion that he had not paid the said amount to her.
Further, he had placed on record his income tax returns
stating that he was an income tax payee. Further, he did
state, in his cross, that the news of the accident of the
appellant had been received by him through a telephone call
made by the appellant’s mother and that his own mother had
gone to see the appellant after the accident in LBS Hospital.
On perusal of testimony, this Court is of the view that the
MACT erred is not accepting the corroboration by PW-3 of
the employment of the appellant as a domestic servant with
him and that she was being paid Rs. 5000/- since his
testimony was rather specific, not vague and gave attendent
facts as well. The requirement of proof even in situations
where there are unskilled workers are paid in cash, cannot
work to the prejudice of the claimant.”
(emphasis added)
27. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Narender, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5973 was considering an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 15 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
appeal filed by the Insurance Company raising an argument that the
Tribunal erred in calculating the benchmark income of a security officer
working in Noida, UP, and instead attributed minimum wages prevailing
in Delhi. Taking a liberal view and relying upon the oral testimony of the
wife of injured, this Court upheld the assessment of Tribunal and
observed as under:
“24. In the past, this Court has time and again held that the
Act is a welfare legislation aimed at benefiting the victims of
the accidents. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
victim has suffered 90% disability and therefore, would not
be able to continue the work of security officer.
25. The material on record also makes it clear that he was
the sole earner in the family and therefore, the family shall
be dependent on the compensation awarded for subsistence
and furtherance of treatment of the victim.
26. Since the calculated compensation is already based on
the minimum wage and not the actual claimed income of the
victim, in the interest of justice, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to reduce it further as the same would be an
addition to the misery of already suffering family.
27. The increase in living cost has already increased the
difficulties of the families where the sole earner have
suffered disabilities due to accident and therefore, the
further reduction would be nothing but an impediment for
the basic sustenance of the families.”
(emphasis added)
28. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Magma HDI GIC Ltd v.
Poonam Kumari & Ors., 2025:DHC:11987, dealt with an appeal filed
by the Insurance Company against the Tribunal’s award in the case of
death of one, Rahul Kumar in a road accident. Claimants had asserted
that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.23,000/- per month while
working as a munshi/clerk at a shop. Considering that there was no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 16 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
evidence in support of the salary, minimum wages of a matriculate were
taken at Rs.19,473/- per month. In the appeal before High Court,
claimants relied upon oral evidence of the wife of deceased and the
employer of deceased. The employer had stated that he was a fruit seller
and running a small business in the name of ‘Papita Merchants & Order
Supplier’ thereby, appointment letters were not issued, but asserted that
the deceased had been employed with him since 2019.
28.1. The High Court noted that it was not possible to insist upon the
provision of documentary evidence in the form of appointment letters,
salary slips, etc. where the employment is in the informal sector.
Therefore, evidence must be looked at holistically. Considering that the
evidence of wife of deceased was corroborated by the testimony of
employer himself, coupled with the fact that the accident occurred at the
location of his stated employment.
28.2. The High Court, however, noted that the Tribunal did not accept
the assertion of claimants as regards the quantum of income. In the
absence of documentary evidence and in view of the payment being
made in cash, assessment on the basis of minimum wages of a
matriculate was appropriate.
29. This Court in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd v.
Naresh Chander and Ors. 2026:DHC:683, was dealing with an appeal
filed by the Insurance Company whereby the income of deceased had
been computed by the Tribunal at Rs.18,222/- per month on the basis of
his employment details, which was upheld by this Court relying upon
Rajwati @ Rajjo (supra) and Poonam Kumari (supra), based on a
cumulative assessment of the testimonies of father and the two
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 17 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
employers. This Court noted that the Insurance Company could not
provide any evidence to controvert the engagement of the deceased with
the two employers where he was working in part-time service.
Guideposts
30. Principles which may be culled out from these cases cited above,
and be used as guidepost for assessment of benchmark income, can be
summarised as under:
A. Lack of documentary proof
i. In the informal sector, it may not always be possible to produce
documentary proof of employment and payment of wages, which
are usually paid in cash.
ii. Where there is lack of documentary proof to support that the
victim was working in Delhi, reliance may be placed on facts and
circumstances of the case to determine whether, the victim was
residing in Delhi on the date of accident, in conjunction with
documents such as driver’s license, voter ID card, etc. Minimum
wages of place of work will be then considered.
iii. If documentary proof has not been filed, the Court can use the
minimum wage benchmark of an appropriate category i.e.,
unskilled, skilled, matriculate, etc., as a benchmark for
assessment, but not be constrained to grant the lowest tier.
B. Oral testimony of family members, employers
i. Assessment of income can also be done on the statement of the
immediate legal heir of deceased, i.e., wife, father, or immediate
family member, along with a statement of the employer, if any.
Testimonies of the above-mentioned persons should be consistentSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 18 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
and there should be an unsuccessful rebuttal by the Insurance
Company or the contesting party.
ii. If the testimonies are not reliable, the Court can use the minimum
wage benchmark of an appropriate category i.e., unskilled, skilled,
matriculate, etc., as a benchmark for assessment, but not be
constrained to grant the lowest tier.
C. Proof of employment
i. If documents in support of employment inter alia, Salary/Wage
Certificate, Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) have been filed, same
shall be considered.
ii. In the absence of such proof, assessment done by the Court has to
be based on some intelligent guesswork and may not be restricted
to the minimum wage parameter after taking into account a
holistic analysis of the evidence on record. For example, place of
employment, testimony of co-workers, or any other person who
testifies in favour of the injured/deceased employee.
iii. The entire assessment is ultimately imbued with an element of
approximation and guesswork, as part of the inquiry proceedings
and not on exactitude.
iv. Reliance may be placed on State specific legislations, as well as
Minimum Wage Notifications to lean on for support, in order to
determine what qualifies as a skilled worker and an unskilled
worker, with respect to the vocation of the victim.
D. Age, occupation and educational background of the victim
i. In cases where the victim was a student and the evidence on record
suggests that the victim would have engaged in employment afterSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 19 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
completing education, had the accident not taken place; the Courts
must consider the educational background keeping in view the
missed future opportunities.
ii. Reliance to be placed on documents and testimonies indicating the
prior educational background of the victim, if no proof has been
placed with regards to the employment details.
E. Standard of living of deceased persons
i. When a claim petition has been filed by the surviving dependents
of a deceased, where the deceased was the breadwinner of the
family, Courts must attempt to ascertain the benchmark income
keeping in view the void left by the breadwinner’s death and
income must be determined keeping in view the standard of living
enjoyed by the family before the accident took place. While
monetary compensation is a means to filing the financial hole left
by the deceased, an estimate may be required to be done in order
to support the remaining family members.
31. Needless to say, these are merely guidepost, illustrative and not
exhaustive. However, there is no denying that individual cases would
turn on its own peculiar facts.
The Present Case
32. In the present case, a wage certificate has been produced as Ex.
PW 1/2, signed by the proprietor of M/s Kanta Enterprises where the
deceased was working from 4th September 2017 to 18th January 2018 at a
wage of Rs. 15,000/- per month. PW-3 was a summoned witness and has
testified in support of this certificate. While PW-1 had stated that the
deceased was working as a helper in M/s Kanta Enterprises, on the other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 20 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
hand, PW-3, stated that there were 3 or 4 employees working with him
during that period. Notably, respondent/Insurance Company has heavily
relied upon the cross examination of PW-3, which may be reproduced
for the sake of assessment:
“I am a summoned witness. I am Proprietor in Kanta
Enterprises. There were 3-4 employees working from
January, 2017 to January, 2018. Summons was received by
my neighbourer at the address mentioned in the summon. I
worked in the address mentioned in the summons. It is
wrong to suggest that neither I work there nor I stay in the
address mentioned in the summon. It is wrong to suggest
that I did not receive the summon and I came here at the
behest of petitioner to give false statement. I have not
maintained any book of accounts for 3-4 employee who
worked from January, 2017 to January, 2018. It is wrong to
suggest that I have not maintained any books of account for
the wages paid to the employees as I have not paid any
wages to any of the employee working at that time. I have
not placed on record the ITR filed by me for the period
January, 2017 to January, 2018. I do not recall wages
mentioned at the time of filing of ITR for the said period. I
have given details to CA. It is wrong to suggest that I do not
have any record showing the wages mentioned at the time of
filing of ITR for the said period and any document showing
that I have tendered the same to my CA.
I have never deducted Provident Fund from the salary of my
employees. It is correct that no provident fund was deducted
from the wages of Ashok. It is correct that there is no
mention in the books of accounts maintained by me that the
wages were paid to deceased Ashok. It is correct that I have
not given any details to CA for deduction of wages/salary
paid to deceased Ashok. Again said, I have given details to
CA for wages/salary of deceased Ashok at the time of filing
of ITR. It is wrong to suggest that I have given details to CA
for wages/salary of deceased Ashok at the time of filing of
ITR. It is wrong to suggest that I have not placed on record
the details filed by CA at the time of filing of ITR. No police
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 21 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
verification of deceased Ashok was carried out by me before
his employment.
I personally do not know the family of deceased Ashok. I
have not placed any document/record showing that I have
paid wages/salary to deceased Ashok. Wages/salary were
paid to the employee in cash. It is wrong to suggest that
neither the wages/salary was paid in cash or cheque. It is
wrong to suggest that the salary certificate dated
10.02.2018 is a false document and without any supporting
document to show that Rs.15,000/- was ever paid to
deceased Ashok.
I have not maintained any attendance register of employees
from 1st September, 2017 to 18th January 2018. I do not
have any other document to show that deceased Ashok was
working with me from 1st September, 2017 to 18th January,
2018. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased Ashok was
working with M/s. Kanta Enterprises from 1st September,
2017 to 18th January, 2018. It is wrong to suggest that I
have placed on record Ex.PW3/1 is false and fabricated. It
is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the behest
of petitioner. It is further wrong to suggest that Ex.PW3/A
is false.”
(emphasis added)
33. The Court has perused the testimony of PW-1, along with the
statement of PW-3 and cross examination conducted by
respondent/Insurance Company. Moreover, the statement made by the
Proprietor by way of affidavit in examination-in-chief, Ex PW3/A and
the Salary Certificate exhibited has been taken note of.
34. In his statement, PW-3, Proprietor of M/s. Kanta Enterprises has
categorically stated that the wage/attendance register for the period of
September 2017 to January 2018 were not maintained by him. He goes
on to state that the wages were paid in cash and the Salary Certificate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 22 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
exhibited was not false. It is pertinent to note that the testimony was not
relied upon the MACT by stating that, “there is no wage register or
attendance register or even the ITR of said firm filed on record to
corroborate the oral testimony of PW2 nor there is any other proof of
payment of salary at said rate in favour of deceased.” It was also noted
that there being no cogent proof of employment or salary, the MACT
was left with no option but to assess the monthly income of the basis of
minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
35. In this regard, this Court is of the view that the oral testimony of
PW-3 cannot be relied upon, as it has not been supported by any
documentary evidence. It was further stated by him that, he did not have
any document to show that the deceased had been working with him
from 01.09.2017 to 18.01.2018. Therefore, in view of the principles
culled hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that minimum wages will
have to be considered if the oral testimony cannot be relied upon.
36. As regards the categorization of minimum wages, reliance may be
placed upon the testimony of PW-1, which remained unrebutted after
cross-examination by respondent no.1/Insurance Company. The FIR also
records the statement made by brother of deceased, who stated that the
deceased was travelling from his village Nagla Rustampur to Noida for
work on his motorcycle and the accident occurred at Yamuna
Expressway, Noida.
37. There is no reason to displace the testimony of PW-1, however, in
the absence of documentary proof to support this testimony, this Court is
inclined to consider income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages
of a skilled worker in UP. In this regard, statement made by brother of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 23 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
deceased that that he was on his way to work when the accident took
place, also needs to be taken into consideration to conclude that the
deceased was working in a private job.
38. Therefore, in view of the above observations, this Court is inclined
to assess the income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages of a
skilled worker i.e. Rs. 9,381/- per month. Assessment undertaken by the
Court has to be done by taking note of all the facts and materials on
record, along with some intelligent guesswork.
39. The revised computation is therefore, as under:
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by the
Tribunal Court
1. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 7,400/- Rs. 9,381/-
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.2,960/- Rs. 3,752.4/-
3. Less-personal expenses of the
deceased (C) Rs. 2,590/- Rs. 3,283.35/-
4. Monthly loss of dependency
[(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 7,770/- Rs. 9,850.05/-
5. Annual loss of dependency
(Dx12)= (E) Rs. 93,240/- Rs. 1,18,200.6/-
6. Multiplier (F) 15 15
7. Total loss of dependency (E x F)
= (G) Rs. 13,98,600/- Rs. 17,73,009/-
8. Compensation for loss of love
and affection (H) Nil Nil
9. Compensation for loss of Rs. 2,42,000/- Rs. 2,42,000/-
consortium (I)
10. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
11. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
12. Total Compensation Rs. 16,76,900/- Rs. 20,51,309/-
(G+H+I+J+K = L)
13. Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%
14. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 3,74,409/-
Directions
40. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 24 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13
Rs.3,74,409/- [“enhanced amount”].
41. Enhanced amount along with 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a
period of four weeks, which shall be released as per the scheme of the
MACT. Original compensation awarded by the MACT shall continue to
be released as per scheme of the MACT.
42. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
43. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
44. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.
45. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.
46. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 30, 2026/RK/sp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC. APP. 330/2024 Page 25 of 25
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:31:13