National Insurance Co Ltd vs Meera Devi & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 20 August 2026.
nd
Pronounced on: 02 September 2026.
rd
Uploaded on: 03 September 2026.

# CNR No. DLHC010373762026
+ MAC.APP. 524/2026 & CM APPL. 53814/2026
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr.
Vishal Agrawal, Advocates.
versus

MEERA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha
Chauhan and Ms. Anjali Singh,
Advocates for Respondent no.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company
st
assailing impugned award dated 01 April 2026, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, North-West District, Delhi [hereinafter,
‘ MACT/Tribunal ’] in MACT/928/2023 , whereby compensation of
Rs.23,78,774/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was
awarded to the legal representatives of Ramesh [hereinafter ‘ deceased ’],
th
who passed away in an accident, which occurred on 26 January 2021
near Jhimar Pur Village .
Submissions on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company
2. The assertion by Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha , counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company, is that benchmark income of deceased
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 1 of 14

ought not to have been assessed at minimum wages of Delhi , as the
documentary proof, i.e. the ration card, the licence, as well as the
certificate issued after death of the deceased, are all of Rajasthan .
3. It is further contended that the MACT has assessed the benchmark
income of the deceased, as per the minimum wages applicable to Delhi
only on the basis of the testimony of father of the deceased, who stated
that deceased was working as an agricultural labourer in Village Khair
Pur , Delhi , although there was no documentary proof in this regard.
4. Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha , counsel for appellant/Insurance
Company, has pointed out to the evidence by way of affidavit of Poma
Ram / PW1 [ father of the deceased ], which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A ,
wherein he stated that his son, Ramesh Kumar was doing agricultural work
after taking the land of Dinesh Chhikara and Sonu on Batai Basis, at
Village Khair Pur and Punjab Khore , Delhi . He was stated to be residing
in Delhi at Village Khair Pur .
5. Poma Ram / PW1 further stated that, on the day of the accident, Uma
Singh @ Pratap bought a birthday cake from the market at Bawana , and
thereafter, sat on the pillion of a motorcycle, which was being driven by
his son, i.e. the deceased herein. Between 07:45 P.M. and 08:00 P.M.,
when they reached the road leading from Village Punjab Khore towards
Jhimar Pur Village , another motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 13Q-
0225 , being driven by Suraj , came at a high speed, and hit their motorcycle
with great force. As a result, both of them fell down on the road and
sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was then taken to the Maharishi
Valmiki Hospital , where he was declared ‘ brought dead ’.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 2 of 14

6. Furthermore, in his cross-examination, Poma Ram / PW1 stated that
he did not have any documentary proof to show that the deceased was
residing in Delhi or that he had taken the land on a contractual basis. He
denied the suggestion that the deceased was not a resident of Delhi , and
further stated that, he, himself, had two and a half bigha of agricultural
land in Rajasthan , which was being used for cultivating crops. He also
admitted that as per the Aadhaar card of deceased, he had been a resident
of Rajasthan . He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not holding
a valid Driving licence [‘ DL ’] on the date of accident, and stated that the
copy of the DL had been filed as Ex.PW1/4 .

7. Mr. Sinha , counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, further drew
the attention of this Court to the DL of deceased, which was issued by the
Licencing Authority , Abu Road , Rajasthan , his ration card, issued by the
Government of Rajasthan , as well as his unmarried certificate, issued by
nd
the office of the Gram Panchayat, Basan , after the accident, on 02
February 2021. The said unmarried certificate recorded that marriage of
Ramesh Kumar had not been registered in the Gram Panchayat and that he
had not been married. Mr. Sinha also pointed out to the fact that the
Aadhaar car of deceased recorded that he had been a resident of Sirohi ,
Rajasthan .
8. Accordingly, Mr. Sinha , counsel for appellant/Insurance Company,
has placed reliance upon the following decisions to support his contention:
i. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kirti , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9352
In the aforesaid case, the Coordinate Bench of this High Court dealt
with a situation wherein both the deceased persons had been
residents of District Sonepat in the State of Haryana . The Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 3 of 14

noted that there was no evidence to show that either of them was
working for gain in Delhi . A concession was recorded on behalf of
the claimants, to the effect that the ‘ loss of dependency ’ may be
recomputed on basis of the minimum wages payable to workers in
the State of Haryana . However, an appeal was subsequently filed
by the claimants before the Supreme Court, whereby father of the
deceased took a plea that the deceased was earning Rs. 14,000/-
every month as a teacher at the Pratap Public School , Delhi , but he
was unable to substantiate his claim with any documentary
evidence. Consequently, the plea raised by father of the deceased
was rejected by the Supreme Court, which did not disagree with the
opinion rendered by the High Court.
ii. Bhagwan Dass v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2026 SCC OnLine
Del 1092.
In the aforesaid case, this Court was hearing a plea of enhancement
of compensation. Counsel for the claimants contended that since the
accident had occurred in Delhi and the deceased was working in
Delhi , the minimum wages of an un-skilled worker in Delhi ought
to have been taken, instead of those applicable to Madhya Pradesh .
However, he failed to place any evidence to show that family of the
deceased was residing in Delhi . Her ration card and Election ID
card, also recorded that they had been issued from Madhya
Pradesh . In these circumstances, the Court, held as under:
“ 11. It is well settled that claims under the MV Act are
decided on the principle of just and reasonable
compensation. Nevertheless, this does not absolve the
claimants from placing some cogent evidence on record
to establish that the deceased was employed in Delhi. In
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 4 of 14

the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest
that the deceased was employed in Delhi at the time of
her death. The oral testimony of PW 1 is silent
regarding the place of employment of the deceased. To
assert Delhi as the place of employment, sole reliance
has been placed on the affidavit of Sh. Bhagwan
Dass filed along with the appeal.
12. Although a coordinate Bench of this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Badal, 2025 DHC 11100,
and this Court in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pratima Kumari, 2026 DHC 122, have held that
the minimum wages of the State where the deceased was
employed are to be considered for assessing loss of
dependency. In the present case it has not been proved
that the deceased was employed in Delhi. Therefore, it
would be appropriate to apply the minimum wages
applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, where the
deceased was a resident, as evidenced from the Ration
Card. The MACT was, therefore, correct in applying the
minimum wages of Madhya Pradesh, and no
interference is warranted. ”
(emphasis added)
iii. Savita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2365
In Savita ( supra ), this Court was dealing with a claim filed on
behalf of legal representatives of the deceased, whereby various
issues had been raised regarding assessment of the benchmark
income of deceased. Accordingly, the Court, culled out certain
guidelines for assessment of the benchmark income. For ease of
reference, the said guidelines have been extracted hereinbelow:
“ 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 5 of 14

(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 consistent 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 6 of 14

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 after 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.
(emphasis added)
Mr. Sinha , counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, has placed
reliance upon paragraph A (ii) of the aforesaid guideposts, wherein
the Court observes that, in absence of documentary proof
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 7 of 14

establishing that the victim was working in Delhi , the place of
employment may be determined on the basis of the facts and
circumstances, read with the documents such as driving licence,
Voter ID card etc. The minimum wages would then be considered
on the said basis.

Submissions on behalf of Respondent no.1/claimant
9. Mr. Manish Maini , counsel for respondent no.1/claimant, has
countered the aforesaid contentions by stating that there was enough
evidence on record to establish that the deceased had been working in
Delhi .
10. In the support of his submission, Mr. Maini , counsel for respondent
no.1/claimant, relied upon the following decisions:
i. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Badal , 2025 SCC OnLine Del
9043
In this case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was faced with a
claimant whose permanent residence was in Uttar Pradesh ; but, the
Tribunal assessed his ‘ loss of income ’ on basis of the minimum
wages prevalent in Delhi , on the account of his evidence, wherein
he stated that he was living and working as a ‘ Sales Executive ’ in
‘ Riyansh Selection ’, situated at Bhrampuri , Delhi . Considering that
he had specifically stated his present address to be in Delhi and his
permanent address in Bulandshahar in his affidavit of evidence, and
that he not been cross-examined on this aspect, the Court held that
the evidence placed on record was sufficient to establish that he had
been residing in Delhi for a considerable period prior to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 8 of 14

accident, even if he was unable to prove the identity of his employer
by way of documentary evidence.
ii. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pratima Kumari , 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 100
In Pratima Kumari ( supra ), the Insurance Company raised a plea
that the minimum wages of Uttar Pradesh ought to have been
applied in respect of the deceased. Counsel for the claimants,
however, pointed out to the statement made by wife of the deceased,
who stated that he was working as a ‘ clerk / Munim ’ at New Sabzi
Mandi , Azadpur, Delhi . The Court further noted that wife of the
deceased had not filed any documentary proof in this regard.
Finally, the Court, having perused the specific deposition of wife of
the deceased, and noting that no cross-examination had been
conducted by the Insurance Company on this aspect, affirmed the
application of minimum wages applicable to Delhi . The Court,
thereafter, observed as under:
“ 14. It is common knowledge that thousands of workers
who are residents outside Delhi find their avocation and
employment in Delhi and are therefore, entitled to
minimum wages given in the jurisdiction of Delhi, and
not the minimum wages where their original residence
may be.
15. Reliance in this regard may be placed on judgments
of this Court in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Badal, 2025:DHC:11100 and The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu Devi, 2025:DHC:10153. ”
(emphasis added)

iii. Mr. Maini , counsel for respondent no.1/claimant, further relied
upon paragraph B(i) of the guideposts which have been laid down
in Savita ( supra ), to contend that assessment of the benchmark
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 9 of 14

income can also be done on basis of the statements made by the
legal heirs of the victim, including, wife, father and other immediate
family members, provided that their testimonies remain consistent,
and are not rebutted by the Insurance Company or the contesting
party.
11. Furthermore, Mr. Maini , counsel for respondent no.1/claimant,
points out to two facts, which, according to him, suggest that the testimony
of Poma Ram / PW1 was credible, first , that he had mentioned specific
details regarding the accident, and second , that he was not cross-examined
by the Insurance Company.

12. As regards the decision of the High Court, and subsequently, of the
Supreme Court in Kirti ( supra ), Mr. Maini , counsel for respondent
no.1/claimant, submitted that the said case involved the death of a
‘ housewife ’, where there had been a specific concession by the counsel for
claimants.
Analysis and findings
13. Considering the view taken by this Court in Savita ( supra ), and the
guideposts provided therein, there can be no doubt that testimonies of the
family members may render some guidance to the Court in assessing the
benchmark income of the deceased. The Court has also, in paragraph A(i)
and (ii) of the aforesaid guideposts, specifically dealt with cases involving
lack of documentary proof and held that, in such cases, reliance may be
placed upon other facts and circumstances, in conjunction with the
documents such as driving licence, Voter I-card etc. However, the Court
has clearly stated that these rules are not to be applied in a straitjacketed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 10 of 14

fashion, but have to be considered in accordance with the facts and
circumstances of each case.
14. In the case at hand, all relevant documents, i.e. the Aadhaar card,
Voter I-card, driving licence, as also the ration card show residence of the
deceased in Rajasthan . Therefore, the only thread which respondent
no.1/claimant seeks to hang on to is the testimony of Poma Ram / PW1 ,
who stated, “ my son Sh. Ramesh Kumar was doing agricultural work after
taking Land of Sh. Dinesh Chhikara and Sonu on Batai Basis at Vill. Khair
Pur and Punjab Khore, Delhi respectively and he was also residing in
Delhi at. Vill. Khair Pur, Delhi ”.

15. It is, however, essential to note that this is not a case where there
exists no testimony or affirmative statement regarding specifics of the
work in which the deceased was engaged in Delhi . Instead, Poma
Ram / PW1 has consistently stated the names of the persons from whom
the land had been taken, as well as the location of the same. He has also
stated that the deceased was residing in Delhi at that point of time.
16. In this regard, the view taken by this Court in paragraph 14 of
Pratima Kumari ( supra ), which has been extracted hereinabove, informs
the opinion of this Court. The Court must take judicial note of the fact that
many workers come from neighbouring States to find work in Delhi and
the lack of documentary proof cannot displace the same.
17. What also persuades this Court to accept the contention that
deceased was working in Delhi is the fact that the accident occurred when
he was going from Village Punjab Khore towards Jhimar Pur Village . It
was specifically stated by Poma Ram / PW1 , that, on the date of the
accident, after taking birthday cake from the market at Bawana , his friend
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 11 of 14

and him proceeded “ towards their respective residences at Vill. Khair
Pur, Delhi and Durga Enclave, Punjab Khore, via Road leading from Vill.
Punjab Khore towards Jhimar Pur Village ”. Having regard to the
aforesaid, it is quite clear that the deceased must have dropped the pillion
rider [ his friend ] at Village Punjab Khore , where he was staying, and
proceeded towards Village Khair Pur , where the accident took place.
18. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu
Devi , SCC OnLine Del 8470. In the said case, the address of the claimants
was stated to be in the State of Bihar and there was no evidence to the
effect that the deceased working in Delhi . The claimants relied upon the
affidavit in evidence of wife of the deceased, wherein she stated that the
deceased was working as a rickshaw puller in Alipur area of Delhi . It was
further noted that no substantial cross-examination was conducted by the
Insurance Company on this aspect. The Court, accordingly, dismissed the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and held as under:
“ 11. The contention of Mr. Sharma is, in my view,
untenable. The accident admittedly occurred while the
deceased was plying his rickshaw in Delhi. While
considering the minimum wages to be applied, the Court
must take account of the evidence to determine whether
the deceased was, in fact, living and working within
Delhi. In a case such as the present, where the deceased
was a rickshaw puller, it cannot be concluded that he
was not a resident in Delhi, merely because of lack of
documentary evidence. The oral evidence of his wife
was to this effect; most significantly, the accident itself
took place while he was plying rickshaw in Delhi. ”
(emphasis added)
19. Therefore, considering that the place where the accident took place,
coincides with the place of work of the deceased, as stated by Poma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 12 of 14

Ram / PW1 in his testimony, and that there was no substantial cross-
examination to displace the testimony of Poma Ram / PW1 , the Court is
not inclined to interfere with the MACT’s award.
20. It is also essential to note that as per the settled position of law,
proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal do not operate on
the strict rules of evidence.
21. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. , 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 455, and Sebati Nath v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 3468, among other decisions. For ready reference,
the operative portion from Prabhavathi ( supra ) is extracted as under:
“ 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
3
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 13 of 14

The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias
4
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
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”. ”
(emphasis added)
22. Further, in the opinion of this Court, the decision in Kirti ( supra )
cannot be considered in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
for the reason that a specific concession on behalf of the claimants had
been recorded before the High Court, wherein they had accepted that the
minimum wages of Haryana be taken. This aspect has merely been noted
by the Supreme Court, without supplying any endorsement or separate
reason for the same.
23. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.
24. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
25. Statutory amount be refunded to the Insurance Company.
26. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026/MK/ ya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:00:31
MAC.APP. 524/2026 Page 14 of 14