Compensation in motor accident cases must be justified and cannot be a windfall; proper income evidence is necessary for fair assessment.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Insurance Company has in the above case raised only the question of the exorbitant award made on an unconscionable computation of the income of the deceased. The undisputed facts are that the deceased, whose legal representatives were the claimants, wife and three children, died in a motor accident on 29.08.2017. The deceased was driving a vehicle which was hit by another vehicle driven by the fifth respondent at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal framed two issues; whether, the death was caused by the fatal injuries caused in the road traffic accident and the quantum of compensation entitled to the legal representatives. On the issue of death caused in the road traffic accident, there is no dispute raised and the dispute is only on the computation of monthly income.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would point out that the computation of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety-five Thousand only) as monthly income of the claimant is without any basis. A person who had an income of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety-five Thousand only) per month would definitely be liable to pay income tax. There were no income tax returns produced by the claimants. The contention raised based on the loan account produced was that the deceased was paying EMI to the extent of almost Rs. 42,500/- (Rupees Forty-two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, for the two trucks he owned, in which event his income would have been double the EMI paid. There is no basis for such an assumption, and the computation of annual income is on mere surmises and conjectures, argues the learned Counsel for the insurer. It is also submitted that a perusal of the accounts produced by the claimants itself would indicate that there were 15 defaults committed by the deceased which would clearly indicate that he was not getting a regular income to even pay up the EMIs in time.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, however, would point out that the accounts show a different picture and evidence due satisfaction of EMIs. In any event, if there was continuous default, the bank would have proceeded against the defaulter. It is argued that there was just compensation awarded by the Tribunal as confirmed by the High Court especially looking at the reasoning in Gurpreet Kaur vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 1778.

5. Looking at Gurpreet Kaur, we are not convinced that the reasoning on the facts therein has any application to the present case. Therein, the deceased was stated to be working as a contractor for lifting of earth, for which purpose, he had also purchased a tractor. The tractor was purchased on a loan, which had an EMI of Rs. 11,550/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty only) and which loan was paid up within a year also. It is on that basis that the computation of monthly income at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) was determined by the Tribunal and accepted by this Court, setting aside the order of the High Court determining the income on the basis of the minimum wages at the relevant time.

6. In the present case, the claim petition itself spoke of the deceased having been a reputed transporter and the owner of two trucks. This was reiterated by the wife of the deceased who was examined as PW1 who also stated that the deceased had also been driving the truck of others for additional income. The said contention was not at all established by way of any evidence and pertinently as noticed by the Tribunal itself, no income tax returns were filed, which assumes much rele