Social Security Ceilings Cannot Be Mistaken for Actual Earnings: Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Motor Accident Compensation Dispute

“Foreign Notarization Is Not Proof in Indian Courts — Courts Must Act on Lawful Evidence, Not on Speculative Assumptions of Income” - Delhi High Court delivered a critical ruling dismissing a review petition filed by the widow and children of the deceased Iqbal Singh Dosanjh. The petitioners had sought a higher compensation in a motor accident claim, relying on alleged income figures from foreign tax documents. However, 
Justice Dharmesh Sharma was unequivocal in rejecting their plea, ruling: “There is demonstrated no error apparent on the face of the record — the plea that the deceased earned US $97,500 annually is without any foundation.”
The Court firmly reiterated that proving income for compensation requires concrete, duly proved evidence, and not foreign notarizations or speculative figures based on social security ceilings.

The Heart of the Dispute: Was the Deceased’s Income Proven?
The widow and children of Iqbal Singh Dosanjh, who died in a road accident, initially secured a hefty compensation of Rs. 2.23 crores from the MACT, based on an alleged income of US $97,500.
However, the Insurance Company successfully appealed, and in its judgment dated February 29, 2024, the High Court reduced the award to Rs. 49.29 lakhs, finding that the actual adjusted gross income of the deceased was closer to US $28,000 per year.
The review petition tried to challenge this reduction by arguing that the foreign ITRs, allegedly reflecting higher income, were not properly appreciated.
But the Court firmly rejected this argument, observing: “The Income Tax Returns placed on record were not duly authenticated by a consular officer as required under Indian law — mere notarization by a US notary does not equate to legal proof.”

The Court’s Sharp Warning: “Speculative Figures Cannot Override Evidentiary Rules”
Justice Sharma, dissecting the claimant's arguments, highlighted a fatal flaw: the reliance on a social security earnings cap in the USA as proof of actual income.
 

The Court made it absolutely clear: “Even if it were assumed that $97,500 was the ceiling for social security contributions, it does not establish that the deceased actually earned that amount.”
“Social security limits are irrelevant unless there is specific, credible proof that the deceased earned at that ceiling.”
Thus, the Court ruled that there was no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was earning anything close to US $97,500 annually.
 

Instead, the Court relied on figures derived from the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) exhibited before the MACT:
•    Wages earned ranged from $11,403 to $15,971 over 2005–2008.
•    Adjusted gross income was approximately $28,000 annually.
This meticulous evaluation led the Court to fix the compensation accordingly.

Notarization Abroad Is Not a Passport to Admissibility in Indian Courts
Addressing the evidentiary standards, the Court observed: “The documents were merely notarized abroad but were not authenticated under Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948.”
“Foreign notarization without authentication by a consular officer does not satisfy the requirements of admissibility in Indian courts.”
Thus, the Court firmly emphasized that procedural compliance is not a mere technicality but a vital safeguard against fraudulent claims.

Concluding with a Stern Reminder: “Review Cannot Become an Appeal in Disguise”
Rejecting the attempt to reopen the case under the guise of a review, Justice Sharma observed: “Review is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record — it cannot be used to seek a rehearing on merits.”
“The Court cannot pass a fresh judgment simply because the petitioners are dissatisfied with the outcome.”
Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed with the clear finding that the original judgment reducing compensation was fully justified.

Justice Sharma noted that the entire compensation amount of Rs. 49.29 lakhs, along with 12% interest per annum, had already been deposited with the MACT, and directed:
“The claimant widow shall be entitled to realisation of the said amount in her favour, in accordance with law, without any further delay.”

Date of Decision: April 24, 2025