$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 300/2023 & CM APPL. 29274/2023 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate. versus SMT KAMLESH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company, submits that the sole issue canvassed in the present appeal pertains to the adoption of the minimum wages of a skilled worker, i.e. Rs. 16,468/- per month, as the benchmark income of respondent no. 1 (claimant/injured). He submits that the Insurance Company has challenged the said determination on the ground that there was no documentary evidence or proof of income placed on record to justify the same. 2. In view of this Court’s decision in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2026:DHC:3626, where guidelines for assessment of benchmark income has been considered, the MACT was not amiss in taking minimum wages of a skilled person as benchmark income of claimant. The relevant paragraph of Savita (supra) is extracted as under: “30. Principles which may be culled out from these cases cited above, and be used as guidepost for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:20:17 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…” 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. Nothing further survives for consideration in the present appeal. 4. By order dated 29th May 2023, Insurance Company was directed to deposit 70% of the compensation amount, and the was same was directed to be released to the claimants, as per the disbursal scheme set out by the MACT in the impugned award. 5. Now, since the appeal is dismissed, balance 30% amount along with accrued interest will be deposited by the Insurance Company before the MACT within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the deposited amount shall be released to the claimants, as per the disbursal scheme set out by the MACT in the impugned award. 6. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:20:17 7. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned MACT for information and compliance. 8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 21, 2026/ak/zb This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:20:17