$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 83/2026 , CM APPL. 5451/2026 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Adv & Ms.

Shagun Srivastava, Adv versus KAMLESH BHATI AND ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Sinsinwar, Advocate with Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advcoate for R-1 &

R-2.

Mr Pankaj Gupta, Ms Priyanka S Aneja and Ms Amita, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CM APPL. 5452/2026 (condonation of delay

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned.

2. Application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 83/2026 , CM APPL. 5451/2026 (Stay

1. This appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 27^th September 2025 by the MACT, Tis Hazari Courts (Central) Delhi in MACT Petition No. 889/2021, challenging the amount of compensation which was given essentially on the basis that the benchmark income was taken at Rs.40,000/-

without any evidence being on record.

2. The deceased passed away due to accident occurred on 08^th April 2021 in Ghaziabad, when he was hit by Eicher Truck. The driver was charge sheeted under Section 279/304A of IPC.

3. The deceased was a lawyer and had been enrolled in 2009.

4. The wife of the deceased stated that he had been working with one Mr. Kunwar Pal Tyagi, PW-2, since 2010 and was getting paid Rs. 40,000/- per month.

5. Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, counsel for appellant points out that Mr. Tyagi has cross-examined but in cross examination he could not even produce any other documents to support the fact that the deceased was working with him or that he was being paid Rs. 40,000/- per month.

6. PW-2 failed to produce his own Income Tax Returns to show that the said deductions were being sought on account of payment to the deceased or any other document including vakalatnamas in which the deceased has appeared along with Mr. Kunwar Kumar Tyagi in his firm.

7. Counsel for respondent, however, states that the vakalatnamas are available in TCR and seeks to place reliance on the same aside from the decision of the Supreme Court in Sebati Nath Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, arising out of SLP no. 26253/2025 dated 12^th November 2025.

8. Issue notice.

9. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ankit Sinsinwar, counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1-2, (the mother and the minor child) and Mr Pankaj Gupta, counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 (wife of the deceased).

10. Counsels for parties will file their respective note of arguments not exceeding three pages, synopsizing their contentions along with list of citations, which they wish to rely upon, cross-referencing PDF pages of the Court File. The same will be exchanged inter se counsels at least three days prior to the next date of hearing.

11. Trial Court Record be also requisitioned and placed on record. Digital copy of the same be supplied to the counsels for the parties, if so requested.

12. The Insurance Company will deposit the entire amount of the compensation, along with accrued interest, before the Registry of this Court, within a period of three weeks. Subject to the aforesaid deposit, there shall be no enforcement of the impugned award till the next date of hearing.

13. Thereafter, 75% of the deposited amount be released to the claimant within two weeks in terms of the direction of the MACT.

14. The balance amount be kept in an interest-bearing FDR on an auto-

renewal mode and will be subject to the further orders of the Court.

15. List on 27^th February 2026.

16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 27, 2026/RK/bp