In the absence of documentary evidence, courts may determine income in the informal sector using credible, unrebutted oral testimony and minimum wage benchmarks. Awards must strictly comply with established precedents regarding future prospects, non-pecuniary damages, and multipliers to ensure just compensation.

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, assailing impugned award dated 29th April 2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs. 9,31,672/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% to the claimants.

2. The accident occurred on 31st March 2000, when the deceased, along with his companion labour was loading coolers in a truck. In the meantime, a Truck bearing No. DL-1GA-5706 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by respondent no. 5/driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. Due to the impact, he fell down and received grievous injuries and as a result, passed away. Claim petition was filed by his wife and 3 children, who are the respondents/claimants herein.

3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, challenges the impugned award on two grounds. First, future prospects were granted at 100%, which is not permissible as per the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; and second, non-pecuniary damages, granted on account of loss of consortium, loss of care and guidance of minor child have to be realigned as also, funeral charges and loss of estate.

4. The compensation awarded by the MACT was as under:

5. As regards the issue of loss of dependency, MACT calculated benchmark income by considering minimum wages of an unskilled person given at Rs. 2,419/-. However, as per the testimony of PW-1, wife of deceased, he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and was working in a factory.

6. While no proof of income has been placed on record to support this contention, PW-1’s testimony remained unrebutted in the cross examination conducted by appellant/Insurance Company. Furthermore, this Court in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626 had culled out the principles for assessment of minimum wages. Noting scenarios where there is no documentary proof of income in an informal sector and oral testimony of family members has been provided, minimum wages should be used as a yardstick and the Courts should not be constrained to consider wages from the lowest tier. Relevant paragraphs of the decision are extracted as under:

“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

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