IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Death in motor accident – While calculating compensation, Court should take into consideration not only actual income at the time of death but should also make additions by taking note of future prospects.
(2) Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 16th August, 2018 in a First Appeal from the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.

3. The Appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of Rajesh (deceased) who died as a result of a motor accident on 15th August 2010. He was traveling in a Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No. MP-09-HE-3322, on reaching Badwah Road, a bus bearing Registration No. MP-09-FA-3169 being driven by Respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner crashed into the Rajesh’s car, resulting in Rajesh (deceased) receiving grievous injuries on various body parts, he later succumbed to the injuries during treatment. He is survived by his two wives, three children and his parents, who are the appellants before this Court.

4. The claimants/appellants filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation in the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs. By its award dated 12th July, 2013, the Tribunal estimated the deceased’s income at Rs. 4000/- per month and allowed the claim in the amount of Rs. 6,24,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition till the date of full realization of the decreed amount. The appellants filed a First Appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, wherein vide impugned judgment dated 16th August, 2018 the High Court increased the deceased’s estimated income to Rs. 5000/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,41,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition till the date of full realization of the decreed amount. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the claimants are in appeal before this Court.

5. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent-insurer to pay the compensation. In view of this admitted position, it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the accident.

6. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, and he used to run a business of scrap and earned Rs. 15,000/- per month as claimed by the appellants, in support the appellants had filed the deceased’s Income Tax Return for financial year 2009-2010 before the Tribunal which showed the total income of deceased to be Rs. 1,18,261/- approx. Rs. 9855/- per month. The MACT disregarded the deceased’s Income Tax Return on the ground that neither any ITR prior to 2009-2010 nor any other document with regard to the deceased’s income was filed before the Tribunal. The MACT while relying on this Court’s judgment in Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, (2008) 12 SCC 165 held the deceased to be a skilled labour and fixed his income at Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of ‘17’ and deducted one-fourth (1/4th) of the income towards his personal expenses for the purpose of calculation of the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. A total sum of Rs. 6,12,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency, to this Rs. 10,000/- was added for loss of pain and suffering and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. The MACT awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,24,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty-Four Thousand only) towards compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till date of realization.

7. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal was unjustified in estimating the deceased’s income as Rs. 4,000/- per month, considering that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family, the High Court estimated the deceased’s income as Rs. 5,000/- per month. Furthermore, the High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to pass any award under the head of ‘future prospects’, hence the High Court held that since