IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that income tax returns are valid evidence for determining compensation in motor vehicle accident claims, emphasizing the need for accurate income assessment.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the Award and Decree dated 31.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 81 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The claimants are the mother, wife and children of one Nageswara Reddy (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’). The MVOP was filed claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It is their case that when the deceased traveling to Banglore in a Bus bearing No. AP-28-Y-6336 died on 28.12.2011, when the bus driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking a lorry going ahead of the bus. In the process, the bus turned turtle towards left side of a ditch. It was pleaded that the deceased was working as civil contractor and getting Rs.8,90,330/- per annum and he was also an income tax assessee by the date of his death. It was further pleaded that the deceased was doing agriculture work in his own land to the extent of Ac.70.00 cents. Therefore, compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was sought.

4. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. the owner of the bus remained ex-parte. The Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance company filed their counter by denying the averments mentioned in the petition and further refuted negligence on the part of Driver of the bus. It is further pleaded in the counter that both the insured and the police failed to discharge their mandatory duties under Section 134 (C) and Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In the course of examination on behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked and on behalf of insurance company Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Volvo bus bearing registration No. AP-28-Y-6336?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3. To what relief?

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded an amount of Rs.27,30,000/- towards compensation.

8. Heard Smt. Thota Suneetha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

9. The counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded is grossly low and that there is apparent error in the calculation of income adopted by the Tribunal as the Tribunal had not included refundable tax in the income while awarding compensation. It is her contention that only the tax payable as reflected in the Income Tax returns should be deducted and not the refundable tax amount. It is her contention that the compensation awarded is grossly low and sought for enhancement.

10. The counsel for the respondents-Insurance company contended that the Income tax returns were filed by PW-3, a tax consultant and he had admitted that he is not competent to file tax returns and only an auditor has to file the returns as the income exceeds Rs 10,00,000/-. Further, it is doubtful whether the tax returns were filed at all. It was further contended that there is no proof that the deceased was a certified Class-I contractor and in the absence of authentic evidence establishing income of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

11. After hearing the respective counsel, the only issue for consideration in this appeal is “whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case?”

12. The only documents that need to be considered in this case are Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7, which the Income Tax returns for the AY 2010- 2011 and A