$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 79/2026 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE .....Appellant Through: Ms. Vandana Surana, Adv.

versus YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dilawar Singh, Ms. Mansee Singh, Ms. Savitiri Singh, Advs. for R-1 along with R-1 in person (through VC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CM APPL. 5352/2026 (Exemption

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 79/2026 along with CM APPL. 5351/2026 (Stay

1. This appeal has been filed seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACT No.319/2023 on 01^st November 2025.

2. Ms. Vandana Surana, counsel for appellant contends that the compensation which has been awarded at Rs.40,46,408/- is an exaggerated amount, considering the income of the deceased, who was a lawyer, for the purpose of assessment was considered based on an ITR for Financial Year 2021-22, whereas the accident occurred in January 2023, and the income would have thereafter reduced. Accordingly, the benchmark income considered as Rs.35,288/- per month is erroneous.

3. However, a perusal of paragraph nos.25, 27 and 28 of the impugned Award, would show that the MACT relied upon three years’ ITRs (Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/8). For the Financial Year which was just concluded (2021-22), the gross income was considered as Rs.4,38,446/- and after deduction of income tax, the same was considered as Rs.4,23,446/- and, therefore, the monthly income was calculated. Abovesaid paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“25. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident, he was a practising lawyer at Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner is an enrolled advocate and was earning about Rs.80,000/- per month. Further, it is stated that due to the accident and permanent disability, he hardly earns Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month now. In this regard, the petitioner has proved on record his Bar Counsel of Delhi Registration Certificate which is Ex. PW-1/14. He has also relied upon his ITRs for the years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 which are Ex. PW-1/6 to Ex. PW-1/8 (colly)…

…27. As per the latest ITR of the petitioner which is Ex. PW-1/8, his gross income was Rs. 3,53,561/-. This ITR is for the assessment period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. The date of accident is 20.01.2023. Hence, this ITR cannot be considered as it is obvious that he was unable to work from the date of accident till 31.03.2023. Hence, taking this ITR as the basis of his income shall not be proper.

28. As per the ITR of the petitioner for the financial year 2021-22, which is Ex. PW-1/7, his gross income was Rs. 4,38,446/-, on which income tax of Rs. 15,000/- is payable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. Hence, his total annual income is assessed to be Rs. 4,23,446/-. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs.35,287.16 (rounded off to Rs. 35,288/-).”

4. The Court does not see any infirmity in this assessment accorded by the MACT. Even otherwise, it would be assumed that in the months, after the Financial Year 2021-22, after ten months have passed, reduction in income for a self-employed individual would not be an indication that income in the next year would be so severely depressed that the income of previous financial years cannot be taken as a benchmark income. Theref