MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 1/17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 12

th

January 2026

Pronounced on : 10

th

March 2026

Uploaded on : 11

th

March 2026

+ MAC.APP. 301/2017

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Raj, Advocate.

versus

NEETA & ORS

.....Respondents

Through: Ms. Deepshikha Rai, Advocate for

Respondent nos.1-3 & 6.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

03

th

February 2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North East

District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT No.

24/2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,30,000/- along with interest

@ 9% per annum from the date of filing.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the accident took place on 14

th

October

2014, at about 8:30 PM, when Sh. Davender Kumar while cycling reached

near Chaprouli Chungi, Barout, UP, when a bus bearing no. UP-17C-7141

coming from Saharanpur side, driven by Sh. Sachin Kumar Sharma hit the

cycle due to which the cyclist along with his cycle fell down and sustained

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 2/17

grievous injuries. Sh. Davender Kumar was taken to Government Hospital

Barout later transferred to Astha Multi Specialist Hospital, Delhi Road,

Barout where despite the best efforts the deceased died due to injuries

suffered by him in this accident. An FIR no. 843/2014 was registered under

sections 279/427/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and subsequently a

chargesheet was filed.

3. Claimant/petitioner was the Legal Representatives (‘LRs’) of

Devender Kumar under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(‘MV Act’). On basis of pleadings the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether deceased Davender Kumar died on account of

injuries sustained in accident taking place on 14

th

October

2014 at about 08:30pm at near Chaproli Chungi, facing TVS

Motorcycle Agency, Barout, UP within the jurisdiction of PS

Barout due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing

no. UP 17C 7141 by respondent no. 1?

(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to

what amount and from whom?

(iii) Relief.

4. Issue no.1 was decided in favour of claimants on grounds of testimony

of PW/2/ Mohd Arif, who was eyewitness and deposed about the facts of the

case. The Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 post

cross examination by respondents and came to the conclusion that deceased

suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver. Further,

there was a criminal case record including FIR, and chargesheet against the

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 3/17

respondent/driver, which was taken as proof of rash and negligence of

driver.

5. As regards Issue no.2, the wife of deceased was examined as PW1/

Smt. Neeta, who deposed that her husband was earning Rs.15,000/- per

month but could not produce any document to show his income. Further,

PW-3/Ram Niwas, was also examined to determine the salary of the

deceased, who deposed that deceased was working with him for seven to

eight years as a supervisor and was a permanent employee in the company

M/s Shyam Engineering Works with a last drawn salary as Rs.15,000/-. No

appointment letter, salary slip and identity card of deceased was produced.

The Tribunal, based on the same, held that there was no reason to disbelieve

the testimony of PW-3 and accordingly income of the deceased was taken to

be Rs.15,000/-.

6. As per the age of deceased, multiplier of 17 was applied and with four

dependents a deduction of 1/4

th

was made towards personal expenses, thus

the loss of total dependency was calculated as Rs.22,95,000/-.

Compensation was also awarded under non-pecuniary heads i.e. Rs.

1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of

consortium, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- for funeral

expenses totalling to Rs.2,35,000/-.

7. In presence of valid insurance policy and no violation of terms and

conditions of the policy, the insurance company was directed to satisfy the

award.

8. Counsel for appellant assailed the impugned award on the limited

ground that the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 4/17

merely on the testimony of PW-3 without any salary slips, appointment

letter, ID card of deceased or any employment proof to substantiate the

income. The income of deceased in these circumstances should have been

calculated as per Minimum Wages Act. Further, the interest @ 9% per

annum awarded by the Tribunal is high and should therefore be reduced to

either 6% per annum or 7.5% per annum.

9. In response, Counsel for respondent/ claimants contended that the

MV Act is a beneficial legislation and that the Tribunal as a fact-finding

body correctly exercised its discretion by accepting the oral evidence,

especially since the deceased was working in informal sector and did not

have salary slips, therefore, reliance placed by the Tribunal on testimony of

PW-3 is sound and needs no interference. As regards interest @ 9% per

annum, the same is neither excessive nor contrary to law. Thus, contending

that the present appeal should be dismissed with exemplary cost and the

impugned award dated 03

rd

February 2017 be upheld.

Analysis

10. The only issue which has been raised by appellant/Insurance

Company relates to the assessment of the benchmark income of deceased at

Rs.15,000/-, on the basis that he was working with M/s Shyam Engineering

Works and PW3 had deposed that his last drawn salary was Rs.15,000/-. The

Insurance Company contends that there was no appointment letter, salary

slip or ID card produced and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken

the testimony of PW3 on the face of it.

11. In this regard, the testimony of Neeta, claimant and wife of deceased,

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 5/17

who deposed as PW1 should be considered. She stated that at the time of the

accident, the deceased was of about 30 years and was working in Jyoti

Nagar, but she did not have any document. Further she stated that her

husband was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, though she did not have any

document to show his income. She denied the suggestion put to her that her

statement was wrong.

12. The testimony of PW3/Ram Niwas would have to be seen in this

context. He was summoned as a witness and stated that the deceased had

been working with him for the last 7–8 years as a Supervisor and was a

permanent employee. He deposed that the last drawn salary of the deceased

was Rs.15,000/- per month. Documents relating to the company including

Form B, Form S.T.-8 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover)

Rules, 1957 are exhibited as Ex. PW3/1 (OSR) (colly).

13. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not filed any

appointment letter, salary slip and identity card, nor does he have the

attendance register. Based on this the MACT, while assessing the income of

the deceased, noted that there was no contradictory evidence and nothing on

the record to not rely upon the testimony of PW3 and took the income of the

deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month.

14. Further, Supreme Court in Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul

Munaf & Ors. 2025 INSC 191, has held that in the absence of any material

to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased, such evidence can be

relied upon. In that case, though the claimant asserted that the deceased was

earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a sole breadwinner working as a goundy,

the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.7,500/- per month, which was

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 6/17

affirmed by the High Court. In this regard, the Supreme Court noted as

under:

“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties. We are unable to agree with the view taken

by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the

Appellant. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav had placed reliance on the statement of the

deceased’s wife therein to establish the income of the

person. Similarly, in the absence of any material to

discard the oral evidence of PW1 Wife, we deem it

appropriate to fix the monthly income of the

Claimant-Appellant as Rs.10,000/-.”

15. In Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram & Anr. v. Mukesh

Kumar Yadav & Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 198, income of deceased was taken at

Rs.5,746/- per month by MACT, despite the claimant having stated that the

deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The appeal before the High

Court was dismissed. The Supreme Court then considered the fact that the

specific case of claimants was that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per

month by driving a heavy vehicle. The salary certificate was not filed and the

Tribunal had fixed it by adopting the minimum wage for skilled labour.

Notably, the Supreme Court held as under:

“9…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

claimants were unable to produce documentary

evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal,

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 7/17

same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of

minimum wage while computing the income. There is

no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of

the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was

earning around Rs.15000/ per month.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. Reliance can also be placed on the Supreme Court judgment in

Ramachandrappa v Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.

Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 where injured/claimant was working as a coolie

and earning Rs.4,500/- per month and due to the accident, his right hand was

totally disabled and his livelihood suffered. As regards the issue of income it

was stated that injured was earning Rs.4,500/- per month; the Tribunal

assessed the income as Rs.3,000/- on the assumption that the wages of a

labour during the relevant period were Rs.100/- per day. The Supreme Court

thereafter noted as under:

“13…This assumption in our view has no basis.

Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was

served, it did not choose to appear before the Court

nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant.

Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to

have reduced the claim of the claimant and

determined the monthly earning a sum of 3000/- per

month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a

Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to

produce any documentary evidence to substantiate

his claim. In the absence of any other evidence

contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our

view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal

should have accepted the claim of the claimant.

14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all

circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the

claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 8/17

material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a

given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the

claim made is contrary to ground realities, the

Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed

to determine the possible income by resorting to

some guess work, which may include the ground

realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.

15. In the present case, appellant was working as a

Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the

wage of the labourer was between 100/- to 150/- per

day or 4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was

honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no

reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly

earning of the appellant from 4500/- to 3000/- per

month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his

monthly earning was 4500/-.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. The Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 26253/2025 case

titled “Sabita Nath & Ors. v Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.” in a

similar situation where claimant asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.

15,000/-working as wholesale trader of fish and was sole breadwinner of the

family, the Tribunal assessed the income as Rs. 7,000/-, which was affirmed

by High Court. The Supreme Court noted as regards assessment of income of

deceased as under:

“ 8. We are inclined to interfere with the findings of

the Courts below in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month as the same was

not assessed correctly on the basis of the evidence on

record. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav, has held that “In the absence of documentary

evidence on record, some guesswork is required to be

done”. Also, in the case of Prabhavathi v. Bangalore

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 9/17

Metropolitan Transport Corpn., this Court has held

that:

“13. It is the settled law that under the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in

compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence

used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the

standard of proof is based on the preponderance of

probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan

SRTC observed that:

“22. It is thus well settled that in motor

accident claim cases, once the foundational

fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the

accident, has been established, then the

Tribunal's role would be to calculate the

quantum of just compensation if the accident

had taken place by reason of negligence of the

driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so,

the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by

the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while

deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle

accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in

mind must be of preponderance of probability

and not the strict standard of proof beyond all

reasonable doubt which is followed in

criminal cases.”

The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati

alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

wherein it was observed that:

“20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as

such, while dealing with compensation cases,

once the actual occurrence of the accident has

been established, the Tribunal's role would be

to award just and fair compensation. As held

by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum

Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as

applicable in a criminal trial, are not

applicable in motor accident compensation

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 10/17

cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be

borne in mind must be of preponderance of

probability and not the strict standard of proof

beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed

in criminal cases.”

9. The Courts below have not given due appreciation

to the uncontroverted oral evidence given by one Mr.

Kishore Kumar Behera (PW-3), the manager of the

fish firm owned by the deceased, who deposed that

the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month

from the wholesale business of fish. We in these

circumstances and in light of the law laid down by

this Court proceed to reassess the income of the

deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per month. Furthermore, as

per this Court's judgment in National Insurance Co.

v. Pranay Sethi3, we deem it appropriate to enhance

and award the claimant-appellant(s) consortium

charges to the tune of Rs.48,400/- x 5 =

Rs.2,42,000/-.”

(emphasis supplied)

18. Similarly, in the present case, the testimony of PW3, Ram Niwas,

Proprietor of M/s Shyam Engineering Works, with whom the deceased was

employed, remained uncontroverted. He deposed that the deceased was

drawing a last salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal was therefore

justified in relying upon the said testimony to assess the benchmark income

of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month.

19. It would be pertinent to look at the Supreme Court observation as

regards assessment of benchmark income of deceased, when he is employed

in unorganised sector. The following judgments are referred for the same:

19.1. Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735,

wherein the issue was regarding the assessment of benchmark income

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 11/17

of vegetable vendor was considered. The Supreme Court is noted as

under:

“8. The appellant claimant in his appeal further

claimed that he had been earning Rs 10,000 p.m. by

doing vegetable vending work. The High Court

however, considered the loss of income at Rs 3500

p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce

any document to establish his loss of income. It is

difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a

labour involved in an unorganised sector doing his

own business is expected to produce documents to

prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court,

in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236 : (2012) 3

SCC (Civ) 452 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 825] , has held

as under: (SCC pp. 242-43, paras 13-15)

….

9. There is no reason in the instant case for the

Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of

monthly income of the appellant claimant. On the

other hand, going by the present state of economy

and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are

inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is

reasonably capable of earning Rs 6500 per month.”

(emphasis supplied)

19.2. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1855, wherein the assessment of benchmark income of a mechanic

was considered. The Supreme Court noted as under:

“ 6. It is unfortunate that in a case of the present

nature, the High Court while assessing the evidence

available on record, has sought to seek strict

evidence with regard to the income of the deceased.

When the wife and children of the deceased were

before the Court, they would not be in a position to

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 12/17

secure all evidence when the deceased earning

member was not in secure job. Despite the same we

note that in the instant case, a perusal of the

judgment and award passed by the MACT, would

indicate that an effort was made to examine the

owner of the two wheeler repair shop where the

deceased was said to be working. The High Court has

discarded the same on the ground that no documents,

to indicate that he is the owner of the shop and he had

employed three persons, has been produced.

7. In a matter of the present nature where the

compensation is sought and even in the absence of

definite proof of the income, the social status of the

deceased is to be kept in perspective where such

persons are employed in unorganized sector and the

notional income in any event is required to be taken

into consideration. The fact that the deceased had

three dependents to be cared for and had claimed

that he was working as a mechanic, the amount

payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis

and in that circumstance when he was a skilled

person, the daily income at Rs. 200/- per day in any

event could have been taken even if the income from

jeep transport business was discarded for want of

documents. More so in a circumstance, where the

MACT had referred to the evidence available on

record and then arrived at its conclusion, the

re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court is

without being sensitive to nature of lis before it.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. The principles that can be culled from the aforesaid judgments of the

Supreme Court are that, firstly, where the deceased or injured was working

in the informal/ unorganised sector and is unable to produce documentary

evidence of employment, the Court may undertake a reasonable assessment

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 13/17

of income. Even where the claimant’s testimony is supported only by oral

evidence, including that of another witness, some degree of reasonable

guesswork may be adopted, having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case and the nature of work being performed by the deceased/injured, as

observed in Chandra (supra).

21. Secondly, where the Insurance Company has neither repudiated the

claim nor produced any evidence to the contrary, it becomes incumbent upon

the Court to evaluate the testimony of the claimant and other evidence on

record. It cannot be ignored that in cases where documentary evidence is

unavailable, the Courts have often adopted minimum wages of the

appropriate category as a guiding benchmark. However, such a standard

cannot be applied inflexibly, as each case involves distinct facts concerning

the life and livelihood of the claimant. The Court must remain conscious of

the realities of employment in India, particularly within the informal sector.

22. Thirdly, earnings in these sectors are often received in cash and,

therefore, supporting documents such as bank statements or income tax

returns may not be available. Further, employers tend to avoid

documentation in cases where the employee are from lower rungs of the

employment hierarchy; thus there is lack of documentary compliance unless

mandated by a statute. In a labour market where supply often exceeds

demand, many individuals are compelled to work without proper

documentation merely to sustain themselves and their families.

23. Any assessment by the Court must therefore take into account these

broader socio-economic contours of our society. rather than adopting a

pedantic or inflexible approach. Reducing the assessments of benchmark

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 14/17

income to formulaic exercise would defeat the object of the MV Act, which

is a beneficial legislation and leans towards providing just and reasonable

compensation.

24. In this regard, it would be important to note that the observation of the

Supreme Court with regards to just compensation. The Constitutional Bench

of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,

(2017) 16 SCC 680 emphasised that “just compensation” under Section 168

of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 must rest on fairness, reasonableness and

equity, avoiding both windfall gains and inadequate awards. The assessment

must be grounded in proven age and income, followed by application of the

appropriate multiplier as standardised in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC

121 and affirmed in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65.

The Court stressed pragmatic and uniform computation, including future

prospects, to ensure proximity to real loss. Relevant paragraph is extracted as

under:

“55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of

“just compensation” and the same has to be

determined on the foundation of fairness,

reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal

standard because such determination can never be in

arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The

aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity

to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials

brought on record in an individual case. The

conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed

through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and

non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a

case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot

expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation

granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 15/17

cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in

the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the

part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression,

that is, “just compensation”. The determination has

to be on the foundation of evidence brought on

record as regards the age and income of the

deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be

applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been

clearly stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC,

(2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009)

2 SCC (Cri) 1002] and it has been approved in

Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan,

(2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3

SCC (Cri) 826] . The age and income, as stated

earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence.

The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that

the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation

which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted

norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an

effort has to be made for grant of just compensation

having uniformity of approach. There has to be a

balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall

and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In

such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the

courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been

made by this Court for standardisation which in its

ambit includes addition of future prospects on the

proven income at present. As far as future prospects

are concerned, there has been standardisation

keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability

and consistency. We approve the principle of

“standardisation” so that a specific and certain

multiplicand is determined for applying the

multiplier on the basis of age.”

(emphasis added)

25. The Supreme Court rightly even in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 16/17

Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, did not give any formulaic approach

regarding the assessment of benchmark income.

26. In view of the uncontroverted testimony of PW1 and PW3, the

absence of any evidence to contrary from appellant/Insurance Company, and

the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandra

(supra), Ramachandrappa (supra), Syed Sadiq (supra) and, Nur Ahamad

Abdulsab Kanavi (supra), this Court finds that the MACT adopted a

pragmatic and legally sound approach in assessing the benchmark income of

the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. The determination is neither

speculative nor excessive but is founded on the standard of preponderance of

probabilities and aligns with the object of the MV Act to award just, fair and

reasonable compensation. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, the

Court is inclined to accept the justification and assessment provided by the

MACT and does not find any reason to displace the same.

27. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Pending applications (if any) are

rendered infructuous.

28. Vide order dated 24

th

March 2017, this Court directed that the

impugned award would be stayed till the next date of hearing. Further, vide

order dated 10

th

July 2017, 50% of the awarded amount was directed to be

released in terms of the directions in the impugned award and the balance

amount was directed to be deposited in interest bearing fixed deposit in auto

renewal mode.

29. It is directed that the balance amount along with accrued interest be

released in favour the claimants as per the Scheme given in the impugned

award.

MAC.APP. 301/2017 Page 17/17

30. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant.

31. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)

JUDGE

MARCH 10, 2026/ak/zb