IMPORTANT POINT
"Income" should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax, although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable due to the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

The present appeals take exception to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.393/2009 dated 6th December, 2016, whereby the High Court declined to enhance the compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and to the order dated 18th January, 2017 dismissing the Review Petition No.20 of 2017. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") vide order dated 4th April, 2009, awarded compensation to the appellant and his father-in-law to the tune of Rs. 5,59,584/- and Rs. 4,53,131/-, respectively, against which four appeals were filed before the High Court, one each by the appellant and his father-in-law and two cross appeals by the respondent, all of which were disposed of by the impugned judgment. The appellant alone has assailed the impugned judgment and prays for grant of enhanced compensation amount. 3. As can be gleaned from the claim petition, the appellant and his father-in-law suffered serious injuries on 26th January, 2005, when their car was hit by bus no. UP-25-G- 9132, owned by the respondent and being rashly and negligently driven by one Alam Beg. The extent of the injuries caused to the appellant included haemorrhage, multiple cuts, bruises and fractures all over the body and post traumatic optic neuropathy. The appellant was treated at several hospitals and operated upon but suffered disability of 25%. He then filed a claim petition in the Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi, against the driver of bus no. UP-25-G-9132, Alam Beg, and the respondent on 27th January, 2006. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal, vide order dated 4th April, 2009, inter alia held that bus No. UP-25-G-9132 was rashly and negligently driven by the driver, Alam Beg, and accordingly, awarded the appellant with compensation of Rs. 5,59,584/- along with interest at 7% p.a. under the following heads:

"23. Keeping in view all the relevant factors, principles of law laid down in above mentioned cases and evidence on record, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per following details:

1. Cost of medicines	: Rs. 1,08,883.00
2. Cost of future treatment	: Rs. 25,000.00
3. Loss of Income	: Rs. 40,802.00
4. Loss of future income	: Rs. 1,78,044.00
5. Loss of income for 15 days	: Rs. 1,854.62
6. Loss of enjoyment of life & Limb etc.	: Rs. 1,00,000.00
7. Pain and Sufferings	: Rs. 50,000.00
8. Compensation for attendant	: Rs. 20,000.00
9. Special Diet	: Rs. 20,000.00
10. Conveyance	: Rs. 15,000.00
Total	: Rs. 5,59,583.62
or say	: Rs. 5,59,584.00"

5. Be it noted that the Tribunal in paragraph 17 of its judgment has adverted to Ext. PW-6/F, which reveals the date of birth of the appellant as 7-11-1969 and on that basis, has recorded a finding that on the date of accident on 26th June, 2005, the appellant was 36 years of age. Further, the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its judgment has taken note of the fact that the appellant on the date of accident was working as Medical Representative with M/s. Stadmed Private Ltd., and after the accident he could not perform his duty because he remained confined to bed.

6. The Tribunal, while recording that the appellant earned a sum of Rs. 50,556/- from `other sources' namely bank interest and commission, over and above his salary, did not consider the said income on the ground that commission and interest could not be considered for computation of loss of income. The appellant had annexed his income tax returns for the year 2004-05 as proof that his taxable income was considerably higher than the amount considered by the Tribunal, as given hereunder:

"STATEMENT OF INCOME