Admissibility of Evidence for Minimum Wage Escalation from Unskilled to Skilled Category in Informal Sector Employment

The appellants sought an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rohini, which had granted Rs. 19,30,000/- plus interest following a fatal road accident.

On December 10, 2014, the deceased, Mohd. Meenaj, was riding a motorcycle when he was struck from behind by a truck; the impact resulted in his head being crushed and his immediate death.

While the claimants argued the deceased was a skilled mason earning approximately Rs. 16,000/- per month, the MACT calculated dependency based on the minimum wages of an unskilled worker due to a perceived lack of corroborative evidence and documentation.

1. Whether the loss of dependency should be assessed based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker rather than an unskilled worker, given the oral testimonies provided by the claimants.

The court applied the principles governing the assessment of benchmark income for workers in the informal sector as established in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2026:DHC:3626).

This precedent dictates that the lack of documentary proof (regular in the informal sector) should not constrain the court to the lowest wage tier if oral testimonies from family or co-workers are consistent and stand unrebutted.

The court also utilized the state-notified minimum wage for skilled workers in Delhi as of the date of the accident.

The Court found that the testimonies of the deceased’s wife (PW-1) and his co-worker (PW-3) provided sufficient corroboration of his status as a skilled mason.

PW-1 detailed his 15-year career history, while PW-3 provided specific property addresses where they had performed masonry work together.

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s objection regarding the absence of bank records or certificates, noting that in lower economic strata, it is common practice to deal exclusively in cash with no margin for savings.

By applying the Savita guidelines, the Court determined that the MACT erred in defaulting to "unskilled" wages when "intelligent guesswork" based on consistent oral evidence supported a "skilled" classification.

It enhanced the monthly income from Rs. 8,632/- (unskilled) to Rs. 10,478/- (skilled), resulting in a revised total compensation of Rs. 23,02,400/-. This constituted an enhancement of Rs. 3,72,400/- over the original award.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount with 9% interest within four weeks, with specific instructions for the release of funds and the creation of successive Fixed Deposit Receipts for the claimants.