$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010446502026 + MAC.APP. 617/2026 & CM APPL. 64318/2026 (stay) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. versus IMRANA PARVEEN AND ORS .....Respondents Through: not yet served. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 18.09.2026 CM APPL. 64317/2026 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 64319/2026 1. In the facts and circumstances, as narrated in the application, delay of 31 days in re-filing the appeal, stands condoned. 2. Application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 617/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 02nd June 2026 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in MACT No.463/2021 awarding compensation of Rs.38,79,770/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 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 24/09/2026 at 11:09:55 2. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, challenges the notional income of deceased taken at minimum wages of skilled worker for calculating loss of dependency. It was submitted before the MACT that deceased was a skilled interior designer and carpenter earning Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month. 3. Income Tax Returns [‘ITR’] of deceased were also placed on record as Ex.PW4/B (colly) for Assessment Years 2014-2019. However, the ITRs were not taken into account for the reason that there was a discrepancy in name of the father; accordingly, minimum wages of skilled worker were taken, as prevalent in Delhi at the relevant time. 4. Testimony of PW1, wife of deceased was also taken into account, who had provided substantial details in her testimony by way of affidavit. She sustained her testimony in the cross-examination and therefore, there was no substantial rebuttal to her evidence. 5. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of this Court in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626, where the Court noted that some amount of guesswork can be done while assessing benchmark income and the Courts should not be constrained to consider wages from the lowest tier. In case of lack of documentary proof, reliance may be placed upon the testimonies of family members and assessment done by the Court has to be on the basis of intelligent guesswork. 6. Therefore, the MACT has rightly considered the notional income of deceased at minimum wages of a skilled worker, considering that the deceased was stated to be a skilled interior designer and carpenter. 7. Accordingly, in view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. 8. The impugned award passed by MACT stands confirmed and shall 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 24/09/2026 at 11:09:55 be complied with. 9. Appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount, along with accrued interest before the MACT within the next four weeks, which shall be disbursed as per directions contained in the impugned award. 10. Pending application is rendered infructuous. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026/sm/sp 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 24/09/2026 at 11:09:55