The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate evidence and proper evaluation of the claimant's income in determining the just compensation for motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. Heard Mr. A. Kakodkar for the appellant-Insurance Company in First Appeal No. 70/2014 and for respondent No.2 in First Aappeal No.81/2014.

2. Heard Mr. S. Redkar for respondent No.1-Claimant in First Appeal No.70/2014 and for the appellant in First Appeal No.80/2014.

3. Heard Mr. V.G.P. Dukle for respondent No.2 in F.A. No.70/2014 and for respondent No.1 in F.A. No.81/2014.

4. In both these appeals, the challenge is to the impugned judgment and award dated 7/5/2014 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Margao (Tribunal), awarding compensation of Rs.19,92,000/- to the claimant, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim till payment. The insurance company is aggrieved by the finding on negligence, as also the quantum of compensation which the company believes is excessive. The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation which he believes is neither just nor adequate. Hence, it is only appropriate that both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment and order.

5. On the aspect of negligence, there is really no ground to interfere with the impugned award. The claimant has examined himself as AW.1 and deposed to the accident between the TATA Indica car and the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle that he was riding. He has deposed to the speed at which the car was driven and how the car came on the wrong side, in an attempt to overtake the vehicle in front of him. This is backed by police documents like FIR, scene of the accident panchanama and the sketch.

6. The claimant also examined his wife Anjusha (AW.2), who was riding pillion along with her husband. Her evidence corroborates the version of the claimant and she has withstood the cross examination without any dent to her testimony. The claimant also examined Sitaram (AW.3) again, an eye witness to the accident.

7. The evidence of these witnesses has been analysed by the Tribunal applying the correct principles. The Tribunal has also evaluated the evidence of Vishvesh (RW.1) who stated that the claimant was talking to the pillion rider and, therefore, the accident. The Tribunal has referred to the improvements made by this witness and gave cogent reasons why his evidence does not inspire confidence. Based on all this evidence, there is no case made out to interfere with the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the car.

8. Mr. Kakodkar is, however, justified in objecting to the Tribunal determining the annual income of the claimant at Rs.3,03,580/- based on tax returns filed for the first time after the date of the accident. The record indicates that the accident took place on 9.9.2010 and the income tax returns were filed only on 14/3/2011.

The claimant, in his deposition, admitted that he is a civil contractor undertaking private works and yet, he had never filed income tax returns at any time before the accident. The claimant also stated that his earning are reflected in the nationalized bank account held by him. However, the pass-books or other evidence in support of such income or earnings, was not produced by the claimant.

9. In V. Subbulakshmi and others vs. S. Lakshmi and another (2008) 4 SCC 224 the Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the award in which the income tax returns filed after the date of the accident were excluded. Following this decision, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Lalitpur vs. Ramilaben w/o. Jayantilal Patel and ors. 2017 (2) Mh.L.J. 822 has held that the income tax returns filed after the death of the claimant in the accident, ought to be excluded from consideration.

10. The Tribunal, in this case, contrary to the aforesaid legal position, has based its determination of annual income entirely on the income tax returns filed after the date of the accident. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal deals with cases where income tax returns were filed before the accident and it is in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held t